Election promises are there for the breaking

Parties don't see election promises as "promises" in the plain English meaning of the word. Instead, promises are signals designed to express a deeper character of the political party, writes Chris Berg.

What are election promises for? Who on earth do they convince?

Tony Abbott walked into a trap during the 2013 campaign when he excluded a bunch of policy areas from budget reductions.

Those include the pension ("no change to pensions"), the public broadcasters ("no cuts to the ABC or SBS"), Commonwealth health spending ("no cuts to health"), and Commonwealth education spending ("no cuts to education"). Watch the video, Abbott was unequivocal.

Now, to bring the budget back to surplus, the Government is looking at changing the pension and cutting ABC and SBS.

No one can forget the enthusiasm with which the Coalition pursued Julia Gillard for her "no carbon tax" pledge.

As a consequence, one theme of Abbott's stint as opposition leader was his attempts to bind his future acts in government. But the Abbott obsession with promises predates Gillard's carbon tax backflip. In 2010 he even physically signed a "contract" that the Fair Work Act would not be amended.

I've put the word contract in quote marks because a contract that cannot be enforced is not a contract at all.

That contract would mean nothing if the Coalition announced tomorrow that the Fair Work Act was going to be abolished.

This is the promises dilemma. Elections are commitment games. We vote for the candidates and parties whose values and policies are most appealing. But how can we be sure they'll follow through? All we have is their word - their assurance they will act in a certain way under certain circumstances.

Of course, commitment problems are common across all spheres of human endeavour. In the marketplace we often pay up front for services to be rendered later. But we have courts to enforce commercial contracts that have not been fulfilled. In politics there is no institutional mechanism by which voters can enforce the pledges that their elected representatives have made.

H.L. Mencken famously defined an election as "an advance auction sale of stolen goods". He was not cynical enough. Voters bid without any guarantee that the auction will proceed to settlement.

So the mystery isn't why promises are broken, but why they are kept at all.

The most likely explanation is that politicians want to be re-elected, and a reputation for promise breaking is likely to damage their re-election chances.

But elections are weak discipline. They're only held every three years. And three years is a long time to wait to enforce a contract. Elections are an imperfect control. Sure, voters weigh up the honesty of candidates, but honesty is not the only factor that determines an election. Sometimes it's better to re-elect a liar than risk a potential incompetent.

This practice is of course deeply deceptive - election promises as signals rather than genuine commitments - but it's a deception we're used to.

There are other constraints on breaking election promises. A dissatisfied electorate, even in non-election years, can make it hard to pursue your agenda. Politicians may even be constrained by personal ethics ... who knows?

The inherent difficulties of measuring political promises aside, 67 per cent is surprisingly high. But how would voters react if they were plainly told that one out of three promises would be broken? How would consumers feel if one out of three products were lemons?

If politicians really wanted to demonstrate a credible commitment to the electorate, as the economist Robin Hanson writes, they would post personal bonds - say to their homes - that would be forfeited if a promise was broken. Then we'd know they had skin in the game. Of course no politicians do this.

One objection might be that in a representative democracy we do not vote for representatives as agents to do specific enumerated tasks, but instead install independent delegates who we trust to follow their own conscience.

And it's exactly what the Abbott Government is claiming now - that its general mandate to fix the Australian budget trumps any nit-picking over what was said or wasn't said in opposition.

But then why the elaborate, interminably detailed promises? The Abbott Government, like the Rudd government, released dozens of policy documents in the lead up to 2013 - full of specific itemised policies they planned to implement in government.

Here's one answer. Parties don't see election promises as promises in the plain English meaning of the word. Instead, promises are signals designed to express a deeper character of the political party. When Abbott promised not to change the pension and not to cut public broadcasters he was trying to signal that his would not be a radical government; that he was firmly targeting the median voter.

After all, why give the SBS promise? Did it win any marginal votes? Surely not. But it did suggest to the electorate he had no secret plan to burn through Australia's institutions. Promises like that increase the political cost of radical action.

This practice is of course deeply deceptive - election promises as signals rather than genuine commitments - but it's a deception we're used to.

greg:

22 Apr 2014 12:27:25pm

Abbott should make the cuts and proudly refer to them as cuts. The ABC has done the country no favours lately, and most of us couldn't give two stuffs if biased rubbish like Q&A or The Drum goes off the air. It might even be a vote winner.

rossta:

dmans5:

22 Apr 2014 2:12:20pm

How dare he express free speech in the "tax payer funded " Labor Logic cesspit.Labor promises would have us $667,000,000,000. in projected debt.How many of their own lies would Labor break if they e v e r had a surplus ?

Zany:

22 Apr 2014 6:23:33pm

Abbot and his bunch of incompetents should be defeated at the next election. They wear unemployment like a badge of honour and destroyed the car industry in just 2 months costing the country 100,000,000 annually.

Cranky of Croydon:

RayS:

22 Apr 2014 10:38:09pm

There's a big difference between breaking an election promise and barefaced lying. Abbott has been caught out lying dozens of times and has only kept one election promise - to stop the refugee boats, but overall immigration is up, as are foreign worker visas.

I would rather have entrepreneurial Afghan refugees than so-called "skilled migrants" who take away jobs and remove the need to train locals.

Bill:

RayS:

22 Apr 2014 8:28:48pm

The hypothetical figure of $667 billion was pulled out of somewhere by Joe Hockey, a person who is paid many times the average wage and who has a wife who is a partner in a major law firm who is paid several times what Hockey is paid.

Hockey will receive a non means-tested pension over $200k and an ongoing allowance of several hundred thousand a year when he quits or is kicked out of parliament.

We now have the best (paid) liars and hypocrites ever assembled in one place. Hockey wants to raise the age limit to qualify for the age pension of all those seniors who are treated with contempt by employers once they are over 50. He wants to have "independent" doctors examine disability pensioners to see if they are entitled to a pension. He warns of other "unpopular" measures, but they don't affect his wages, his pension, his allowances or his rules for what he can spend parliamentary allowances on without being charged with the common crime of larceny.

I used to live and work in Hockey's electorate. I even had some dealings with him. He is known as "Sloppy Joe". As with Abbott, the only position suitable for these dishonest, mendacious men is as a mudflap on a semi-trailer, unpaid.

whatif:

23 Apr 2014 7:00:28am

thank you for conveying nicely what I and a lot of others feel about this government, liars are liars and that is all there is to it, if election promises are broken then out they go, as for sloppy joe couldn't have described him better. I hate liars, don't care who they are. I cant see any difference between the parties when it comes to liars, if Gillard was ousted for being a liar on carbon tax, then abbott should be ousted on the pension issue, it is a much worse thing to do then any carbon tax

Cranky of Croydon:

GraemeF:

23 Apr 2014 12:54:49am

Projected debt that required the MYFEO figures to be rewritten to show slower recoveries for company profits and spun out to the year 2024!

That is the only way to get that magical debt figure. Fiddle the figures and then admit you are so incompetent that you couldn't run the economy better than 'the worst government ever'. What a complete and utter joke. Talk about falling for Liberal party lies.

The last Coalition government was rated by the IMF as the most profligate in Australia's history while Labor was lauded all around the world by governments and economists for their excellent handling of the GFC. Swan was awarded the Euromoney award for the world's best treasurer and Gillard was ranked by the International Business Times as one of the most effective Prime Minister Australia has ever had.

Easy to leave a surplus during a boom mining period and after you have sold off $74 billion dollars worth of public assets. What pittance was there in the bank before the Global Financial Crisis? You know the one that crashed taxation income?

If your fact free rant is an example of 'Liberal Logic' then it proves that it is a contradiction in terms.

Aunty Social:

22 Apr 2014 1:23:37pm

greg,Care to explain exactly what "favours" a public funded news organisation should be providing to government? . It's the ABC, not the Ministry of Propoganda.

As for "vote winners", it's the 10% of swinging voters who decide elections not the rusted ons. There are even lots of rusted on Liberal voters who like to watch, or listen to the ABC, especially in the bush.

Never mind $6 doctor copayments. Abbott knows his fate if he starts messing with something dear to many of the 10% in the margins. Especially after trailing in the polls during what was supposed to be the honeymoon period.

House Rules:

Bill:

22 Apr 2014 8:16:04pm

Abbott also knows his fate if he starts messing with work choices, but knowing Abbott as a sleaze and slimy character he will use any fancy name for work choices, as for one of his many lies that work choices are dead and buried, then pigs will fly.Don't get me started on the Royal Commission into the unions, we all know how the LNP is so corrupted and a Royal Commission should have been investigated into the LNP a long time ago.

Aunty Social:

Most politicians are smart enough to heed the dictum, "Don't ask a question unless you already know the answer".

Abbott says, "This Royal Commission is designed to shine a great, big spotlight into the dark corners of our community to ensure that honest workers and honest businesses get a fair go".

Abbott seems to have forgotten another old adage - It takes two to tango. His great, big spotlight will shine just as brightly into the dark corners in the big end of town.

Abbott is an orchestrator. Everything he does is a set piece. He's as much a control freak as Rudd ever was, perhaps more so. That's what surprises me as to why he'd start something he has no control over. Abbott hates surprises, but he may just get a few nasty ones after firing a few shots into the air without any knowledge of where they may fall.

Albo:

22 Apr 2014 2:51:00pm

"I believe it is currently one of the highest rating TV programmes"

Dream on Strathy !

Look at last night's ratings !No Q&A in the top 20 programmes ?Couldn't even match the might of shows like The Project, A Current Affair, My Kitchen Rules, Ten News, Home & Away or even the ABC's own 4 Corners & Media Watch which all made the top 20 ! Seems the people turned off the ABC at 9.30 when Q&A paraded out its usual formularised leftie's weekly sneer & snigger session ?

Rick Morgan:

22 Apr 2014 5:37:38pm

Why does Q and A have to rate. Can guarantee the Bolt Report doesn't rate either. At least the ABC is upholding some reporting standards. Let us decide for ourselves ....... don't tell us what to think.

Sidneysaid:

22 Apr 2014 6:02:12pm

I think you have it spot on Albo.I watched Q&A for a short while until it became obvious that not only were the audience of the same persuasion but the panel also. A panel would not be complete without the obligatory black person or someone of an obvious ethnic persuasion being given an opportunity to tell us what bastards we are. Few of them have enough grey matter to join a debate let alone understand it but that is not the point of it all is it. For anyone to say it is not grossly one sided is being less than genuine.Whether Liberal or labor, telling lies no matter how it is tried to be trivialised should be loudly condemned and opinions of their conduct made crystal clear at the next election. The more they lie and treat the population as morons the more they drive people to the minor parties, no matter how looney.

Lee:

The audience is 'supposedly' aligned to polling, yet every week we have anywhere around 45 - 47+% Coalition voters, the rest made up of Labor, Greens and Independent supporters.

I take note that the ALP supporters in the audience are generally anywhere thereabouts of 30+%, never anywhere near 40%.

Interesting too, that most other panel orientated programs on the ABC, eg: The Drum often, well at most times have all Conservative guests, IPA mouthpieces(Liberal Policy Think Tank) and Reith being a favourite.

Treetop:

22 Apr 2014 11:26:47pm

Q& A always balances the panel when politicians appear .There has been lots of very right wing politicians on the show .What was the name of the female Liberal politician who lost her seat in the last Federal election who appeared numerous times on the show ? or the senator from the Liberal party who made bad remarks about gay marriages when he said marriages between people and animals could be the next on the agenda if gay marriages were allowed ? or the many other LNP politicians who have appeared on the show and have come across badly to many by their comments .I also remember one night on the show when two Liberal party politicians appeared on the show and they took over the show by continually talking so no other guest on the panel could get a word in . The ABC is fair , try putting your comments on the Murdoch Media when your views don't agree with their politics , they put a screen over my computer so I could not comment on any of their stories .

Henry the Moose:

22 Apr 2014 1:57:23pm

Although I am no admirer of Abbot, I do think the moribund ABC needs to change.

Frankly, the new iView is a shocker (put together, I suspect, without any consultation with the actual viewing community), and the online news section of this website is pretty poor too. If I want to get real news and serious details, I go to the Guardian website.

In my opinion the services the ABC provide, in the main, are heavily-subsidised substandard media products. We could save a lot of money by contracting the BBC - an infinitely better service - to run the national broadcaster.

We could have decent BBC dramas, decent kids shows, real journalists from the U.K. who can spell and write grammatically, and the contemptible slop we currently get could be cleaned up at a fraction of the cost.

Algernon:

bobtonnor:

22 Apr 2014 2:59:27pm

do you realise that the ABC is the cheapest network to run in the whole country? It still manages to run this website, its IView, all channels and a radio networks, its funding has not increased in how long? 10 years? the ABC is lean, efficient and bloody good at its job, and no i dont work for them, and it still does the type of job that makes the rest of them look like the chip wrapping they are, disposable garbage for people who dont want the grease to stain.

Aunty Social:

22 Apr 2014 3:03:45pm

"In my opinion the services the ABC provide, in the main, are heavily-subsidised substandard media products."

A dedicated kids channel with high quality Aussie content, very good sports coverage, a dedicated 24 hour news channel, high quality Aussie drama and comedy - Rake, Janet King, Redfern Now, East Of Everything, Jack Irish, Dr Blake, Miss Fisher, Mad As Hell, The Gods Of Wheat Street. Cut the ABC budget and one can kiss content such as this goodbye.

And forget about relying on quality from your beloved BBC. The cream of the BBC dramas are no longer available to the ABC as the BBC sold their Australian rights to Foxtel.

The same guy that owns Foxtel did for UK journalism what Kevin Rudd has done for the Labor Party.

Albo:

22 Apr 2014 3:29:30pm

"We could save a lot of money by contracting the BBC - an infinitely better service - to run the national broadcaster.

Why limit yourself to just the BBC? Why not contract Foxtel as the National carrier ?You can then get your choice of the BBC, SKY, CNN, NBC, Al Jazerra & Fox News for immediate global news coverage to replace the ABC's tardy News service , World Movies to replace SBS, and still have all the Sports channels, The Crime Channel, a myriad of old TV show re-runs funnier than the current ABC stable of comedy, Sky Racing, Lifestyle programmes and multiple radio channels, all for a fraction of the $1.22b annual cost of running the ABC networks !

china:

Alan:

22 Apr 2014 7:40:23pm

You know sweet FA about the BBC, listening to BBC Radio, while travelling around UK the music programs were constantly interrupted by traffic updates, in the middle of classical pieces, you are dreaming, it was rubbish.

Judy Bee:

22 Apr 2014 2:00:33pm

Hello greg,

Without our opinions or permission, this government will make the cuts, as predicted. Chris Berg is arguing for deception, he argues that 'we are used to it'. What kind of irrational world is the one he describes. What kind of dystopia?

We are not immune to the fact that emotions drive politics. Promises are made to appeal to the emotions of voters. Advertising industry understand the appeal to emotion, they do well during campaigns. Emotions drive the political commenters here on the Drum. Very little of it is rational. And that is why we have an Abbott government.

graazt:

22 Apr 2014 3:28:35pm

Well said Judy. Here's yet another professional commentator (part of the apparatus) disempowering citizens by lowering their expectations around how we might hold our politicians accountable. Someone loosely affiliated with the 4th estate, who, rather than trying to keep pollies accountable, encourages everyone to just live with how they're not.

Well, thus it ever was allegedly. And a survey in 2004 proves we can read between the lines. So nothing to see here.

Incidentally, Mr Berg, this is about the 5th article this year where you've effectively argued for the status quo. Either libertarianism has radically been redefined, or you're quite the conservative at heart. :)

Wilmot:

22 Apr 2014 6:58:29pm

Claudius (should I start with "You, Claudius"?)

Tax = Price is a creation of Coalition and its sympathisers. Gillard specifically said that she ruled out a tax but intended to price carbon. Then the Coalition and Co conveniently didn't repeat the second half of her words (easily found in her interview in The Australian), decided that a tax and a price were the same, and used all that to justify calling her a liar.

Surplus = Deficit. Funny to hear the ALP being criticised for this one, after Joe Hockey negotiated a total lack of debt ceiling and then spent at a faster rate than any previous treasurer.

Debt = Infrastructure Spending. When you bought your house, did you pay for the whole thing up front, or did you get a loan? Countries work the same way, if you want something which will provide a return on investment, it's going to cost, and you'll need a loan. It takes a Grade A fool to keep selling the things we need loans for, because after that, how does the country generate any income aside from taxes?

Incompetence = GFC. Are you aware that Australia and Poland are the only two industrialised countries to avoid the GFC? That we both did it the same way, by spending? Do some more research on this topic, you have made yourself look thoroughly uninformed and easily led by the economically illiterate. And seriously, if you want to find incompetence, try this one: spending so much of a mining boom on middle class welfare that even with a surplus, the government can't get an AAA rated economy from anyone. Howard and Costello wasted about $300 billion on unnecessary middle class welfare, and that was the conservative estimate. Does that number ring a bell? Imagine if it had been in the coffers when the GFC hit?.

Cassandra:

It is so very sad that, somewhat like beasts of burden, we resign ourselves to hauling loads that get weightier each day. Few have the time, energy, determination etc, to say 'Enough'.

And when commentary is cunningly twisted by neo-cons (emphasis on the last syllable!) so-called debate quickly descends to a slanging match.

A classic tactic of 'conservative' posters, here and on other sites, is to either throw in constant red herrings or to smear their opponents - soon, reasoned argument goes out of the proverbial window. As intended by the neo cons......

Rinaldo:

Russ:

22 Apr 2014 3:03:45pm

Sooner the cuts to the ABC the better. Thanks to their little play with Indonesian and Australia relations, we have now lost access to the training ground we used for Indonesian Children we were sponsoring for sport. All thanks to the nonsense and hatred stirred up by the ABC, not to mention the two times we have had to place our work place and schools into lockdown. Thanks for nothing Scott!

lynne:

22 Apr 2014 3:29:22pm

OMG Greg, they are two of my favourite programmes you are rubbishing. It is just unbelievable that people prefer the rubbish on the commercial channels,( Current Affair is probably one of Greg's favourites). The mind boggles and I am so flabbergasted with the utter ignorance and stupidity of the right-wing element in this country that I am lost for anymore words to write.

John51:

22 Apr 2014 4:10:16pm

Greg, I see nothing here saying you have to comment on the articles on the ABC. I also see no requirement to have to even go to the abc weblink or watch the abc news on its TV stations or for that matter listen to its radio stations.

Now I for one prefer to go to the abc any day than any of the commercial outlets but that is all about choice. There is no requirements one way or the other imposed on anyone.

After all you can go to any of the Murdoch News ltd media outlets and read or listen or watch any of their biased output. You may not see the abc as perfect but it is not even remotely biased when compared to the Murdoch media outlets. And that is coming from some one who does not agree with everything put up on the DRUM or any of the abc other media outlets. But than i would not expect to.

Bill:

22 Apr 2014 8:05:14pm

With out the ABC this country would be in more strife than Ned Kelly for reporting, why do you thing the 10 network is in strife and loosing money hand over fist, the nine network nearly finished up down the gurgler all because of biased sensationalism, dramatisation and propaganda, the seven network is not far behind. At least one gets the truth from the ABC and not hyped up crap like the tabloids push out.

tc21:

23 Apr 2014 6:33:20am

The ABC is doing the country favours by reporting honest news, the same with SBS. If the ABC was fawning over Abbot like other channels and newspapers rather than just presenting the facts, Abbot would be throwing money at them. The arrogance of the Abbott government makes me sick.

aidnuff:

23 Apr 2014 8:42:50am

,,,and what about all the other half decent shows that the ABC and SBS broadcasts from time to time. Decent dramas, comedy such as Q I, proper current affairs and not that commercial trash? I'll put up with the Q&A and the Drum any day rather than tolerate commercial TV's cheap rubbish.

Woof Woofsson:

22 Apr 2014 12:41:50pm

Yes, the 'carbon tax' is a price on carbon emissions, charged to the emitters. It is essentially a pollution levy that places a price upon clean air (formerly treated as a free good) - it has never been a tax in the true sense of the word. But I'm sure you knew that.

YeahRight:

22 Apr 2014 2:07:01pm

Whilst you provide no source, from what I can find that is prior to her commitment in the article with the Australian.

In either case she stood there publicly and said that an election for her would be a mandate for a price on carbon. Then as a consequence of a minority government she had to alter the mechanism by which a price was delivered.

Hardly the bald faced lies Abbott appears to have made for his own gain (won't know until the budget comes out now will we).

FedUpExpress:

22 Apr 2014 5:16:20pm

I say good on PUP. The independents, and the greens.

The Abbott cabinet are in for a shock of what 'mandates' they really have. Should have stuck with Turnbull and had a proper majority if not in 2010, certainly by 2013. Too late to change leaders back now. Elections will continue to be close or loseable for the foreseeable future when they should have been landslides from 2013 to at least two terms beyond.

Brett:

By "consensus" I think you mean consultation. Consensus was always unlikely given the interests aligned against a carbon price or an ETS or just about anything else except Abbott's red herring.

With hindsight the biggest mistake was not going straight to a market based ETS. There were practical reasons for not doing so but given the way the debate was skewed towards tax, tax, tax and the then Government's failure to make its case, the market might just have been a better selling point.

rockpicker:

Wooduck:

23 Apr 2014 10:14:37am

Gillard broke 3 promises (there might be more but can't think of any so far), Carbon Price (don't agree with you on this one but will include it), overcommitment on pokies (as part of a deal with one of the independents), going into surplus (no one thought they would do this and almost all economists thought they shouldn't have even tried).

How many broken promises will Abbott have (or might have - need to see the budget). So far we have 1. Gonski - yes they did a sort of back flip on this one, but not for the full term of the funding originally outlined in the plan.2. Changes to pensions.3. Funding changes to SBS/ABC4. Spend the first week after the election with the Yolngu.5. Increase funding to NGOs6. No deals with the Greens (then did a deal to raise the debt ceiling)

JohnC:

22 Apr 2014 12:44:53pm

@Claudius P: Perhaps a clearing sale of those pesky broadcasters might be the way to go. Failing that there is always the "efficiency dividend" approach which might be a good way to neuter their anti government sentiments. You have to hand it to Tony though, he managed to pin one broken promise on Julia Gillard and now he is in the process of breaking so many pre election promises that he will confuse the masses and emerge without a scratch. Safety in numbers? Core and non core promises? He sure knows his stuff.

Bill Bored:

Benice:

22 Apr 2014 1:42:58pm

Claudius, if you are not a corporation who pays for their carbon emissions through the carbon pricing scheme, then I would like to see your so-called 'tax' bill for this carbon tax. And before you just copy and paste this quote into a knee-jerk reply about electricity prices, etc, hear me out.

The price on carbon emissions which was always intended to move to an ETS this year, is an input cost on industry - not a tax. Under the pricing system, these industries have the choice to either: 1) clean up their act leading to a lower input cost, 2) Wear the input cost and keep doing what they're doing, 3) Keep doing what they're doing and pass on the input cost to consumers or 4) a combination of the above.

The only time that the carbon price interacted with the tax system was in the compensation given to consumers for industry opting for choice number 3 more often than not.

I do think more compensation should have been available for small business. Some relief was coming to small business from the previous government but Abbott has decided to stop that from going through.

But to the point the article is making, false promises aren't the only deception which the Abbott victory was based on. It was lies - about the effect of the carbon tax, about the revenue it would make, even, it seems by the way climate change policy is being handled, about his on views on climate change which are obviously still that "climate change is crap but my advisers have told me not to say it out loud."

Albo:

22 Apr 2014 3:45:32pm

".. is an input cost on industry - not a tax.""

Hilarious !

You guys can keep coming up with as many synonyms you can scour from the Thesaurus, but you will never change the fact that the ALP, sponsored by their Green captors, introduced a new tax on industry based on its carbon emissions ! That's a Carbon Tax input on industry !

Benice:

22 Apr 2014 5:45:53pm

Albo, not from the Thesaurus but from an understanding and experience of being in business. Let's just say it wasn't legislated as a tax, it doesn't get collected like a tax nor does it operate like a tax.

It is no more a tax than, say, other fees placed on business who have large amounts of rubbish to dump is a tax. And the money is then used for land remediation and other environmental projects, just as the money from the carbon price went towards funding research and development to HELP these industries reduce not only their emissions but their reliance on fossil fuels in the long term.

Now, to the term 'input cost' - the price on carbon, as carbon emissions are the side effect of the production of particular goods or services such as electricity, is an input cost of the production of that electricity.

The input cost of the carbon price meant the total cost of production increased (though not by nearly as much as the replacement of perfectly sound infrastructure with new infrastructure did). The power companies then had a CHOICE of weather to wear the cost of carbon emissions or pass it on to the consumer. They chose to pass it on, similar to the way other industries do when their total costs increase because of either or a new or increased input cost.

In order to compensate consumers of this and other products, the Government of the day used the tax system to ensure minimal impact. (But that still doesn't make it a tax).

Then other cost of living pressures led to economic hardship for a lot of people, which Abbott and co. exploited to blame the carbon price. In fact, there's pretty much nothing they haven't blamed the carbon tax for even though in every accounted analysis of their claims, they've been shown to have exaggerated or fabricated.

I realise this Economics 101 lesson might be a bit more compicated and take longer to digest than "Axe the tax", "ditch the witch", stop the boats" and other "noun the verb" slogans. But the truth is usually a bit more complicated than the spin.

SVJ:

Benice:

23 Apr 2014 2:25:57pm

Short simplistic posts generally require longer posts to point out the detail and complexity missing from glib arguments. I explained the economic theory behind my point, not because I'm trying to understand it but because the previous poster obviously failed to, hence their comments on 'input costs'.

And people who say the truth is simple are generally trying to ignore other facets of the truth that they either don't understand or that they don't want to interfere with selling a simplistic lie.

Sceptic Cynic:

MDG:

22 Apr 2014 5:48:58pm

Repeating lies doesn't make them true. Even Tony Abbott knows the difference between an ETS and a tax - remember when he said, "If you're going to put a price on emissions, why not do it with a simple tax?" Note: tax, not emissions trading scheme.

Benice:

23 Apr 2014 12:53:16am

I know, MDG, and amusingly, Abbott's conversion from this carbon tax support happened almost exactly at the same time as he was supposedly converted to believing in climate change and, coincidentally, at the same time as he became leader of the opposition by one vote and began campaigning against the carbon tax but claimed he was no longer thought 'climate change was crap'.

In other words Turney Abbott will turn for anything, as long as it puts him in power. Because, really, he couldn't give a damn either way on this issue - he just wanted to be elected to take revenge on a) the Left who obviously psychologically bruised him in his university days and b) Gillard, the Greens and Independents for "stealing" his victory in 2010.

And he also wanted the power to bring in his conservative social agenda, which we will see unfold. Basically, the economic conservatives and the social conservatives in the Liberal Party have done a deal with each other to first get power and then to let each other have their way with the country, and we are all going to suffer as a result.

Wilmot:

22 Apr 2014 11:06:51pm

So, when you, or a business, buys stamps from the post office, is that a tax? When you, or a business, buys a drivers licence, is that a tax?

The only difference between those two and the carbon price, is that with the carbon price you pay afterwards, and the others you pay before. They are both a price for a service, and you don't have to have the service if you don't want to.

GraemeF:

23 Apr 2014 1:11:33am

It is a price on an 'externality'. A price per tonne of pollution, also called a Pigovian tax which is not a 'tax' as most people understand.

Abbott had exactly the same conditions put to him to gain power. Since he admitted he would do anything to gain power except sell his arse then you would have to assume he would have agreed to this 'economy destroying tax' and told everyone it was a good idea. He has now proven beyond doubt that he lied to gain power. He never intended to keep his word. Gillard didn't have the same intention or option.

Reinhard:

v:

"Just the same way Labor never gave us a Carbon Tax. It is only a Carbon Price, innit??"

Correct. There is a HUGE difference between a "tax" and the Carbon Pricing Scheme introduced by the previous government.

A "tax" is a sum of money paid by an individual or company into "consolidated revenue" for use at the discretion of the government of the day. Taxes are calculated as a monetary percentage - eg: if you earn $100, you pay $20 in tax, if you earn $200 you pay $40.

But taxes are not the only way in which people and corporations can pay money to the government. If I catch a train to work, I pay the price of a ticket to ride on the train. If I want to build a pergola, I pay my local council a fee to cover the cost of processing my building application. If I take a load of rubbish to the tip, I pay tipping fees to the council. None of these charges could be described in any way as a "tax".

Now, with regard to the last example, imagine if you will, a situation in which householders were expected to pay to dump rubbish at the local tip, but also expected to pay the cost of managing rubbish dumped by commercial enterprises, while commercial enterprises dumped their rubbish for free. This is precisely what WAS happening with regard to enterprises dumping a particular type of rubbish (CO2) into OUR atmosphere.

The question is not whether or not it should cost money to dump rubbish in the atmosphere (it costs - there is nothing we can do about that), but who pays for this dumping: households or the enterprises who profit from dumping the rubbish.

Until the introduction of Carbon Pricing, the cost of atmospheric dumping of CO2 was entirely borne by current and future households because there was nothing stopping enterprises from "externalising" this cost onto households. Carbon Pricing removes some of this cost burden from households and places it where it belongs - with the polluters.

That's all. It's a price, not a tax and, contrary to the sneering subtext of your cowardly post, there is a HUGE and VITALLY IMPORTANT difference between the two. But a CUT is a CUT is a CUT.

rural granny:

Zing:

22 Apr 2014 4:15:07pm

The carbon tax does not reflect payment for a direct service. And even if it did, you would be hard pressed to demonstrate that the revenue is being used to cover the direct costs of providing that service.

Your ticket covers the cost of the train. Your council fee covers the cost of processing paperwork. But what service does the carbon tax cover? What quantifiable cost is it used to offset? Until these answers a provided, it seems to fit the definition of taxation.

The question is not who should pay for the cost of the dumping. The question is what cost does the dumping incur? If I dump a ton of carbon in the air, what is the direct economic cost to the country? By what dollar amount does my carbon dumping put you out of pocket?

The answer is zilch. My carbon emissions don't affect the country's wallet in the slightest. There is no direct cost incurred, no quantifiable damage to assets. And even if global climate change costs us millions in the future, my personal contribution to that cost would be less than 0.001% of the total.

The carbon tax does not reflect any real quantifiable cost. It is an artificial levy, placed on an economic activity to change behaviour and raise a little revenue on the side. Now if the government wants to do that, it's perfectly fine. But it's a tax, nothing more.

If you tried to call income tax an "income cost" nobody would be fooled. And nobody is fooled by calling a carbon tax anything other than what it is. A tax is a tax is a tax.

LeeW:

22 Apr 2014 4:08:47pm

Claudius Pseudonymus: Just the same way Labor never gave us a Carbon Tax. It is only a Carbon Price, innit??

Julia Gillard's promise, or so called lie, (read the FULL transcript of what she actually said) was made with the express view that if she won the election, there would be no carbon tax. Circumstance changed with no outright winner at the election forcing a minority government (one which Abbott would have sold his arse to form) and thus she was forced to go back on that promise.

Abbott has straight out lied on more than one occasion, repeatedly and consistently. No equivocation. His statements were very clear and as it turns out all lies. I gather when these lies are fully exposed in the coming budget you will rally against those deliberate lies as much as you have against the previous governments.

To do anything else makes you a hypocrite.

"hypocrite. (1) A person who engages in the same behaviors he/she condemns others for."

david hill:

22 Apr 2014 8:55:07pm

In August 2010 in the Australian news paper Gillard said and I Quote ""I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism," she said of the next parliament. "I rule out a carbon tax." as far as I can see that is not a lie as we don't have a carbon tax , we have a carbon pricing mechanism .

Bill:

22 Apr 2014 7:57:02pm

And just the same way Howard said no GST under his government, no children overboard, we will decide who comes to this counrty. (but they still come)Do the homework the LNP has broken more promises than all the other political parties put together and now Abbott is carrying on with the tradition.

adrian:

GraemeF:

23 Apr 2014 12:43:08am

For once I agree with you. Gillard had a fixed price leading to an ETS. The fixed price is also called a Pigovian tax. Gillard had to negotiate with a hung parliament. Abbott was given exactly the same deal as Gillard. He would say or do anything to get into power but the mainly conservative independents could tell he was untrustworthy. Tony Abbott of "if you want to put a price on carbon, why not just do it with a simple tax?" fame would have agreed to the 'economy wrecking tax' to get power but then it would have been OK. Now let me see how the tax wrecked the economy... not at all. Labor handed over the economy with three AAA ratings.

He has proven the independents right, he is not trustworthy. He is not dealing with a hung parliament. He doesn't have to renegotiate any of his platform to suit others. He is simply going back on his word. He lied to get into power. He lied about Gillard and he lied about the state of the economy. He lied about the effect of the carbon tax. Lying is just another political tool for the Liberals.

Alpo:

22 Apr 2014 12:15:27pm

"They haven't broken any promises yet"... Deluded much these days GRF? This is the most lying Government in the history of Australia and even the "stop the boats" mantra is a lie! The boats keep coming, but they are turned back, so much so that the Government had to broadcast an ad featuring Lt. Gen Campbell telling potential asylum seekers not to come. If they have "stopped", why the ad?

Adam:

22 Apr 2014 4:41:36pm

Given the billions of dollars it costs each year to have the navy push boats back and also house people in off-shore centres I'd hardly say it's "stopped being our problem". That's money that could be saved and spent elsewhere, potentially avoiding some of the cuts that are about to be delivered in the upcoming budget. That makes it very much our problem.

septumis bent:

22 Apr 2014 2:55:18pm

So when Gillard introduced a carbon tax it was a lie (not a broken promise) but if (when) the LNP ups the pension age it will be a broken promise (not a lie).

The ciscumstances are slightly different of course. When Gillard made her promise it was when Labor was hoping to form government in their own right - the election result removed that possibility. Whereas Abbott formed government in his own right and thus has no excuse at all for breaking his promises. But will we hear of ToLiar or JoeLiar?

Michael:

23 Apr 2014 11:47:18am

septumis, I never said Julia lied - she broke a promise due to pressure from the Greens. What annoys me is that she never admitted as much, and claimed it was always her intention to introduce a "carbon" [sic] price after the 2010 election.

v:

"IF they break promises (which hasn't happened yet), that will be broken promises, not lies"

Well, Abbott has already broken a whole swag of promises he took to the last election including:

*A workable broadband network for all Australians (broken)*No changes to the aged pension(broken)*No CONSIDERATION of changes to the GST (broken)*No change to Medicare Locals (broken)*No change to Better Schools for Australia (the Gonski recommendations - broken)*No change to NDIS (broken)*Decrease government debt (instead, projected debt has BLOWN OUT as a direct result of Hockey's changes to fiscal policy - broken)*Budget surplus in first term (broken)*Stronger relationship with Indonesia (not just broken - TRASHED).*Meaningful action on climate change (broken).

Interestingly, he has also broken a promise made immediately AFTER the election (to have a free-trade agreement with China in place before the end of the year [2013]). Easter 2014 has just passed and we are no closer to an agreement than we were in Sepember 2013, and have virtually no chance of gaining any advantage whatsoever from the eventual deal because Abbott has already declared 'open misere' - stating that he will do "whatever it takes" to secure the agreement. This is the equivalent of walking into a used car lot and declaring "I simply must have that beautiful Trabbant - I don't care what it costs" and then handing a blank cheque to the sleaziest salesman you can find.

Of course, Abbott's extraordinary list of broken promises is even more dramatic when contrasted against the record of the Gillard government, which was the first since Federation to deliver on EVERY SINGLE POLICY it took to the election.

Wave2me:

All that has happened is there has been media speculation, and members of Labour telling us that these promises will be broken,or speculation that these things might have been discussed.

But not a single one has occurred.

For the record, I dont think Gillard lied when she said no Carbon tax ever, as that was her intention at the time.

But she got backed into a corner and could not honour that promise.

I think there are times, such as when the GFC hit, that its better for governments to change policy, even if that means not honouring promises, simply because circumstances are either not as you believed at the time, or have changed.

david hill:

Grump3:

23 Apr 2014 2:41:37am

They lied through their teeth about Labor's NBN costs & their altrnative "Fully Costed Ready to Go $29B Cheaper & Faster National Broadband plan that will deliver a minimum 25Mbps to All by 2016"Now following endless stacked reviews it's become 'up to something by sometime for some' (But, but that's all Labor's fault).Also their insistence on a CBA prior to determining it's composition now conveniently ignored as it morphs into a $41 billion & rising slow motion train wreck with yet to be determined extra $Billions to gain access to, then upgrade & maintain the decaying but 'conveniently required' Telstra/Foxtel networks.

v:

22 Apr 2014 3:38:33pm

Alpo,

"The boats keep coming, but they are turned back"

Quite correct, and it is costing us an absolute fortune.

Think of this: the cost of turning back ONE asylum seeker could also pay the yearly wages for two teachers in a disadvantaged school or two extra nurses in a public hospital. The cost of turning back ONE asylum seeker BOAT could be used to pay for the operation of a Medicare Local regional service for one calendar year.

And this is just boats that can be turned back. When the boats are insufficiently seaworthy, the Navy presents the people smugglers with a BRAND NEW lifeboat worth tens of thousands of dollars, considerably adding to the cost of the turnback. Now, you can buy a lot of leaky fishing boats in Indonesia for what you can get for a slightly used RAN lifeboat. You can then send out these boats with asylum seekers in them, and the Navy will present you with a brand-new, highly marketable lifeboat for each boat you send, which gives you the funds to buy more fishing boats and send even more asylum seekers toward our shores.In terms of a business model, it is the closest thing I have heard to Gomez Addams' "perfect product", which "cost a dime to make, sells for a dollar, and is habit-forming". Mr Abbott has provided people smugglers with a goldmine, at our expense. And, of course, when the "turnback" policy is lifted to avoid bankrupting the Commonwealth, the flow of asylum seekers through our onshore processing centres will resume, but the people smugglers will be better resourced, with better boats and more sophisitcated means of avoiding detection.

"Turn Back the Boats" is one promise that Abbott will HAVE TO break if Australia is to remain solvent. We simply cannot afford it such a gross waste of public money.

Zing:

Sending them back is still cheaper than detaining them or keeping them on Australian welfare.

The lifeboats have beacons. We can always ask for them to be returned, since they remain our property. Anyone who purchases the boats can be arrested for obtaining stolen goods.

Your big ol' theory has a massive flaw.

If arriving into Australia by leaky boat just means you're sent back, people won't risk their money trying to do so. If nobody risks their money, no more leaky boats arrive. If no leaky boats arrive, no lifeboats return. Which means no lifeboats can be stolen by the people smugglers (and you're assuming people smugglers will acquire the lifeboats in the first place - in most cases, the boats are seized by Indonesian authorities).

Peter:

Tom1:

22 Apr 2014 2:29:04pm

Peter: What would induce someone apparently educated enough to read, to come up with that statement?

Do you not think that bipartisanship between the parties would have solved this issue years ago. Instead we have sunk to the depths in using our armed services, and creating a "Sovereign border emergency."

Boat people were made a political weapon by Howard years ago, and it has been that ever since.

rabbie:

Skeptic:

22 Apr 2014 2:45:27pm

If you would care to do a little research on the numbers who migrate to Australia for work every year as compared to those who have sought asylum as refugees, you will quickly see that the former number is much larger than the latter. By an order of magnitude (ten times as many). In other words, the assertion that there are "hordes" of people who will "overwhelm" Australia is a big, fat lie.

septumis bent:

Adam:

22 Apr 2014 4:47:48pm

Are you unable to see beyond those two options? I think there is quite a bit more variation to be found than the all or none you're talking about. Given the minute numbers of people we actually take from refugee camps there is plenty of scope for an actual queue to be formed and a more orderly intake. At the moment the chances of someone from a camp actually ending up in Australia is almost non-existent. For starters let's change that and give them a real chance of coming here legitimately. That's my preference.

david hill:

Albo:

22 Apr 2014 3:59:41pm

"You mean they are paying billions to imprison distressed men, women and children in third world countries. That is what I call an evil farce.'

No ! The farce is what the ALP / Greens allowed to happen for the past 6 years, and the situation is now slowly being repaired as promised by the new government. Every day fewer of your "distressed men , women & children" are having fewer "billions spent on imprisioning them" as they are not coming to our shores any more, as we are once again protecting our borders, our sovereignty and our immigration programme for the first time in 6 years ! We are now able to sensibly re-look at our humanitarian and immigration intake numbers as we now have control of our borders. Those in the refugee camps now have a chance of getting to Australia as they have stopped going backwards in the queue for the first time in 6 years !

Pop:

22 Apr 2014 3:40:12pm

Take the ABC for example and the damage it is doing with Australia / Indo relations, every opportunity it is promoting its Green/Leftist open boarder activism against the huge majority of voters (the Australian public) mandate to protect our boarders. The deal with the previous Government for Australian National Channel tender was a sham, that alone was 220 million dollars.

The previous Governments ruinous distraction of the health systems needs to be rebuilt, the education budget de-barkle was nothing short of bribery with no policy... the list goes on...

MDG:

It's BORDERS, for Pete's sake. If you're so keen on them, learn to spell them. And why should the ABC's breaking of news be an excuse for the government to lie?

Education "de-barkle"? You mean the one that Christopher Pyne said that the Coalition was part of a unity ticket on? Either he thought Labor was doing okay...or he lied.

And what distraction of the health system? You're not referring to NDIS, are you? I would have thought that caring for people with permanent health conditions was part of what the health system was supposed to do...

Skeptic:

23 Apr 2014 9:08:26am

Is the ABC really doing any damage to our foreign relations? Or is this done by those whose words and actions about which the ABC is reporting, without fear or favour? My money is not on the ABC - they are simply reporting on the ill-informed rantings of a few loonies who don't know any better. I think the Indonesian government fully understands this because they are adult enough to recognize that it is the message and not the messenger.

ibast:

22 Apr 2014 12:31:05pm

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

Wake up. This government has pretty much broken a promise at every press conference they have held since getting into power. It's pretty clear they never intended to keep any promise they made and just lied their way into power.

If you hooked a generator up to their lie dial you could power the country and solve the carbon emission problem overnight.

Pop:

22 Apr 2014 3:10:15pm

Can think of a couple of others, the best ones are the ones that give no return on investment and just a continual drain on the economy... That way they will help the structure of the budget in the long term. Private enterprise will pick them up, how they perform there is up to them.

hugh carnaby-sirius:

22 Apr 2014 3:22:46pm

"Trouble is, Labor's debt is so huge"

They inherited $270 billion debt from Labor. Far from reducing it as promised they have abolished the debt ceiling and their own figures say it could go as high as $670 billion. That extra $400 Billion is the LNPs. Adults know that when they take charge of something they become responsible.

david hill:

Michael:

23 Apr 2014 11:43:15am

Dave, if you don't think ~$300 BILLION is "big", then I'm not sure what to say. Especially when this debt was accrued in less than 6 years under Labor, whereas other countries took DECADES to get into their pressent economic positions.

david hill:

Albo:

22 Apr 2014 4:28:39pm

The old " we're not as bad as others" smokescreen !Going from debt free to accumulating $600b in debt in 6 years with so little to show for it, and along the way losing manufacturing, now the China slowdown, with no new markets opened up in the period, now means we are increasing debt at a rate faster than those " basket cases " you want to compare our debt levels with so favourably !We have now been set on a trajectory towards these longer established "basket case" economies, and the only question that remains is which generation of Australian tax payers will be stuck with the bulk of the "biting of the bullets" and the bulk of that bill that is ever building ?

MDG:

22 Apr 2014 5:56:03pm

I assume that you'll direct as much ire towards the Coalition if debt goes up under their watch as you did for Labor. Or how long do you propose to make excuses for them?

The fact is that Australia was going into debt anyway due to the GFC. Even Joe Hockey has admitted as much. The only questions were how much debt and how we got into it and whether it would be used in such a way as to preserve an economy capable of paying it off.

George Spiggot:

23 Apr 2014 2:22:36pm

Don't panic buddy.Abbott's done a deal with the Greens and unlocked the debt ceiling.9 billion to the RBA, some fancy planes, Botox $ to rich Mums.This is going to be an election promise breaking budget that smashes the poor.

septumis bent:

22 Apr 2014 2:07:37pm

They inherited $270 billion in debt, and have blown it out further. Their own predictions are $670 billion. Debt ceiling abolished, revenue sources abolished or about to be (mining tax, carbon tax), new expenditure in the pipeline (PPL). They are making it worse not better.

LeftRightOut:

22 Apr 2014 12:49:48pm

GRF

You obviously are not including the word play with the Gonski funding model, which Abbott & Co re-invented almost immediately.

For a Government determined to improve the budget (core or non-core promise??!!), the request to increase the debt ceiling and eventual removal of the debt ceiling, do not appear to be in-line with the promise of reducing debt.

Chris L:

Mr Abbott's promise that "no school will be worse off" was being withdrawn within days after the election and he tried to justify by the blatant lie that "we never promised that".

Then removing the credit limit by doing a deal with the Greens, something he explicitly and inexplicably promised before the election. Not sure why he even felt such a promise would be helpful, but he made it and broke it anyway.

Breakfast in Bed:

22 Apr 2014 1:02:40pm

I certainly hope that if you ever find yourself in the most unenviable position of having to seek asylum, that other humans have far more compassion for you than simply considering you a farce to be dealt with.

Ol' China:

Skeptic:

22 Apr 2014 2:51:36pm

Do you mean in preference to being subjected to persecution in your home country? Are you a Christian? In that case, no problem with going to PNG for you! Are you aware that PNG is not the friendliest place to be an adherent of Islam? Not really the best solution for those poor buggers, is it?

EM Laidly:

virgil:

22 Apr 2014 1:15:52pm

And I hope we will be able to see exactly how much Operation Sovereign Borders has costed us since the LNP came into power. This over-the-top response to a problem that doesn't have much impact on the everyday lives of almost all Australians must be costing a bomb, but no doubt LNP supporters will allow for this kind of waste & financial mismanagement!

curly:

22 Apr 2014 4:41:16pm

how many times did labor lie about the surplus swan even sent pamphlets around his electric telling everyone he had actually achieved one and I think the cost of labors botched refugee policy cost approx. 10 billion and hundreds to thousand lives at sea I will serve my full term if elected etc etc

Albo:

22 Apr 2014 4:57:40pm

Whatever the current cost, I'm sure it will be less long term than what has been a tax payer funded $12m cost per boat that had been arriving prior to Operation Sovereign Borders being introduced. For example, for the 100 boats that arrived in the March/ April 2013 period, this has cost us a cool $1.2b for just these 2 months of arrivals. What will the 6 years of boats arriving cost us ? Whatever it is, it is just not sustainable when added to the other unsustainable budget costs like our ever growing pension/welfare costs, growing healthcare budget, the unfunded programmes like Gonski, NDIS, & NBN .Putting some sort of a lid on the 6 years of the ALP government's allowing of "uncapped immigration" costs, just had to be taken at last, even if it's costing us some in this operational stage.

GregL:

22 Apr 2014 1:26:12pm

I am not so sure about whether they have broken any promises yet but we will see in the next few months but the signals are clear.

What is important is that Abbott made commitments that are looking more and more rubbery by the day. Abbott knew he would have a monumental problem trying to close the gap if he abandoned the carbon and mining taxes but failed to let us know this. Labor did raise the issue but the message was not heard.

The Labor deficit was unveiled in the run up to the election and that has not changed markedly. What is changing is the forward estimates under the assumptions of the new government and these estimates are without the revenue form the mining tax and the carbon tax and other initiatives. So of course the deficit will rise but it is not all Labor's. This is a given and Abbott and Hockey should have said before the election that they would remove all of the benefits that were funded by these including the pension increases etc etc or said that the deficit will rise substantially if we axe these.

The essence of what Chris has said is right. Politicians rarely see commitments as things that have to be honoured. Nor do they see that introducing major change that has not been spoken about as anything but "reform'. From where I sit a sin of commission is the same as a sin of omission. When did Hockey or Abbott ever mention changes to pensions, or changes to Medicare or in fact changes to anything actually. A government of no surprises yeah right.

I only hope that when things do change that the MSM is as tough on Abbott as they were on Gillard. She changed tack on one issue and was branded a liar a label that never left her. I expect the same front page screaming from Murdoch and others of Abbott does the same.

Skeptic:

22 Apr 2014 2:41:56pm

Something I suspect will not be mentioned in the budget - but which should be, because it is of overwhelming public interest - is how much the 'stop the farce on our borders' has cost thus far. I would not be surprised if this is at least in the tens of millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions. I would be even less surprised if this huge waste of money will be continued to the point that it sends the country broke, just to prove an ideological point.

septumis bent:

2 - "we will achieve a surplus in our first year in office and we will achieve a surplus for every year of our first term.? - Not going to happen.

3- ?We will get the Budget back under control, cut waste and start reducing debt.? - Instead - removal of debt ceiling, polly rorts continue, debt to blow out from $270 billion (inherited from Labor to $670 Billion

4 - ?...restore accountability and improve transparency measures to be more accountable to you.? (after election an administrative order making FOI applications more difficult and costly; also fewer documents made routinely available, tighter control of information about refugee boats.

5 - "a government of no excuses" - and yet everything is still Labor's fault.

6 - "no deals with the Greens" - except if it suits us (removal of debt ceiling).

There was also "no government job for Mirabella" - but technically that promise was made after the election.

Mitor the Bold:

22 Apr 2014 10:12:21am

Abbott is a deceiver of biblical proportions, that much we should all have known. Many of us said as much. Most of us are neither surprised nor shocked; just depressed. Hypocrisy is just Liberal pronounced with a slight affectation.

dmans5:

22 Apr 2014 2:25:50pm

If Mr Abbott breaks any promises there will be a motive of saving money not costing us billions and loss of business in do nothing carbon Dioxide tax. Stopping the boats is an indicator of management capacity.Building a potential $667,000,000,000 debt is another management measure.

Haderak:

22 Apr 2014 10:13:00am

How about we require a written manifesto from each major party three months prior to an election? One that spells out their policies and promises.

Might cut down on the policy-on-the-run that we've been suffering lately. If a promise is press-released that wasn't included in the original, every pundit can claim (correctly) that it hasn't been thought through quite enough.

Hmmm. While I'm wishing, why not require them to put them in order of reliability? Give them the opportunity to put the core-est of core promises at the top of the list, and the maybe-maybe ones a bit further down?

Don't they do something similar to this in Britain? At least with regard to publishing policies?

pete:

22 Apr 2014 12:23:40pm

A manifesto would be good and it should include all political donations and by whom and f they are from a trust then it should state who is in that trust. I think ideology is also as important as policy. I think a lot of people vote on a policy but then don't realise the ideology of the party. The libs should just come out and say we are a neo-liberal tea party right wing party and our ideology is free market, profit at any cost, poor people should be punished for being lazy and poor, the rich rewarded (this will make the poor strive harder) and we believe in privatisation and that govt. role is a contract manager in society and we don't believe in any form of welfare unless its corporate welfare.

Bill Bored:

Depressed:

22 Apr 2014 10:15:22am

I find your article extremely depressing.

You're saying that we should expect our politicians to be honourless, lying charlatans and that we should just accept it.

How about not accepting it? How about holding them to account? How about they KEEP their promises - KEEP their word? The lack of honesty and integrity are surely contributing to the level of cynicism and unhappiness with politics in this country. (and that's not even mentioning the corruption being uncovered in both sides)

In my opinion we deserve to be treated better than that, and we shouldn't just accept that things will get worse. Next election hold the politicans who break promises to account - vote them out. And if the new lot do it, turf them out at the next election. Make them realise they HAVE to keep their promises if they want a chance at re-election.

Fenixius:

22 Apr 2014 12:49:19pm

"How about not accepting it? How about holding them to account? How about they KEEP their promises - KEEP their word?"

You seem too optimistic to call yourself 'Depressed'. Let's see if I can fix that: Australian citizens have absolutely no way of doing any of the things you've described. Berg was correct in saying that elections are weak discipline. Nobody votes on whether promises were kept, everyone votes because they've been institutionalised to be Liberals or Labor, because that's how their parents voted.

LeftRightOut:

If that were true Fenixius then we would never see change. A reasonable proportion of voters are swingers.

What tends to happen is we vote via our hip pocket. Even the media focus on it. What's in it (election promises, budget release etc) for ME?

Voting for current circumstances seems to be the favour with swinging voters. PPL, Gonski, Carbon tax (abolition) etc. The financial impact to the average person of the carbon tax was minimal, however we were told that it is a big cost we shouldn't have to pay. The fact that the Direct Action plan is us paying via taxes seems to have slipped soem peoples minds. The biggest difference being that an individual could change their habits to reduce the carbon tax impost, whereas the Direct Action will either require higher taxes or lower services - i.e. a cost to us, without us having the ability to alter the impact.

Glen:

22 Apr 2014 1:51:43pm

Um..... actually I saw how my parents voted, talked to them about it and thought about what they said and their reasoning, and then made my own conclusions. Turned out I vote differently to them. And for other options rather than just Labor or Liberal. But hey, i'm not everyone obviously.....

septumis bent:

22 Apr 2014 2:25:48pm

Berg is actually helping out his political mates by softening us up for the many broken promises that will happen innthe first budget.

Elections are only a weak discipline because we allow them to be. This is characterised by rusted-on voters and safe seats - both the enemies of acountable government. Next election, vote against your incumbent - give the complacent liars on both sides something to think about

Rusty:

the working man:

22 Apr 2014 3:59:02pm

Rusty, what a silly comment. This coming from one of the right's biggestcheer squad members who rode on one of Julia Gillard's misquoted statementson the ETS. Yet Abbott has broken every promise or election pledge from dayone and the country has to endure his woeful excuse of a government.

a:

22 Apr 2014 12:55:05pm

It is true, the author is stating that politicians are now officially allowed to lie to us. Where you are getting caught up is the voting them out bit. That just means the last set of liars are voted back in, its the old revolving door syndrome. When you have only got a choice in a modern capitalist democracy between dumb and dumber, who do you think is going to do anything. The parties/gangs where taken over long ago. They effectively are the same, so voting them out then back in is just part of their long term plan to control the cheque books and military.

DaveM:

22 Apr 2014 1:00:57pm

Why didn't this line, that "This is the way the world works, Australians are used to it" not come out of the IPA when the ALP was in Government?

Personally, I don't see why courts should only enforce commercial contracts that have not been fulfilled - they could readily form an institutional mechanism by which voters could enforce the pledges that their elected representatives have made.

I'd like to see a pensioners' representative body get a legal injunction preventing the Abbott Government from cutting their indexation, holding him to his "promise" of less than 12 months' ago. Ditto the ABC, SBS, Medicare Locals, etc.

Col:

22 Apr 2014 2:57:28pm

Dave M. A grain of gold dust to come out of your passage #Personally, I don't see why courts should only enforce commercial contracts that have not been fulfilled - they could readily form an institutional mechanism by which voters could enforce the pledges that their elected representatives have made.#Why not give representatives of social bodies and I mean social bodies like the Pensioners groups , Hospital support groups. Disabled support Groups . and others of the same order of merit .Permanent Non-elected seats in the senate. This would give some sense to what is today failing us miserably by moral and ethical corruption ( I make no distinction between the two though a lawyer or politician might )

sonya:

22 Apr 2014 10:17:04am

It is fair and reasonable to suggest that a Promise is an offer insofar as a commitment to the Australian people, on 'just terms' - In short, the Australian folk entered a contract with Tony Abbott. So now we have the Promise broken... so that in legal terms is that Tony Abbott has not stuck to what he promised that won he the last election.... hum???? looks like the Australian Pollies have their own interpretation of the law.

a:

22 Apr 2014 12:58:41pm

Abbott entered into a verbal contract with the public when he made the claims. As the cops sill testify, a verbal contract is evidence of a contract, hence the crappy small talk to bind in contract. Australian politics is devoid of any law. Look at the constitution for instance, the government changes it every year at Coag. Once upon a time only voters can alter the constitution. Now it is a free for all. Once upon a time Senators had to get voted in to parliament, now you can be given a free ticket into parliament, no questions asked. What has Australia become?

PP:

23 Apr 2014 6:55:18am

Would love to agree but unfortunately the contract is not enforceable under law. For a contract to be binding it must have an offer (it does), acceptance (it could very reasonably be argued voting for the party constitutes acceptance) and consideration - ie monetary payment. It does not have consideration and therefore is not enforceable so unfortunately no law has been broken.

a:

23 Apr 2014 1:59:31pm

contracts do not have to have monetary payment, it can be an exchange. Abbot lied and broke promises, he broke contract with his voters, i would never vote for him or the ALPLNPGr machine so he didn't brake contract with me. He broke contract as a PM to the nation.

[1] the underlying subtext being "when the conservatives are in power, because we never made that claim when "The Left" held government" and hounded Gillard based on a deliberate misrepresentation of the ALP's intentions on carbon pricing."

Dez Paul:

22 Apr 2014 10:22:11am

It is one thing to make a promise (in Abbott's case, a bunch of unqualified promises) with the intention of keeping it, it is another thing to make a "promise" without such intention, which would make the "promise" a lie. Abbott was lying, and all the fluffery about "signals" and nuance and voter rationality does not change the fact he is the most deceptive charlatan. This is a government of no surprises - its no surprise to me it is the uber duper of governments. And its no surprise the IPA is head cheerleader for it. Sucked in, Australia.

Doris:

22 Apr 2014 10:23:58am

Don't you think you should wait until the budget and find out first rather than joining the procession of crystal ball gazers forever banging on about cuts and broken promises that haven't even been confirmed yet?

LeftRightOut:

Stuffed Olive:

22 Apr 2014 1:04:39pm

I'm going to dish it out to the Libs at every opportunity. They called Gillard a liar for years on her promise to put a price on carbon and ruling out a carbon tax. There is a difference. So what they sow they will reap. Broken promises already - a budget emergency and all that nonsense is promptly followed by gifting $8 Billion to the RBA who didn't ask for it and didn't need it. The debt is not really a problem if you remove the ceiling. Know what Doris - this LNP government are just full of liars and no one is crystal ball gazing.

macca:

22 Apr 2014 2:15:08pm

SO, no matter how you try and spin it we all saw her on TV and listened when she said "There will be no carbon tax by any government I lead" or words to that effect. She admitted herself that reneging on that promise did her massive political damage. It was said and it was referred to as a tax not a price. Get over it and admit that your idol had feet of sand.

Stuffed Olive:

22 Apr 2014 4:42:35pm

I'm well and truly over it. Gillard made both statements - a price on carbon and no carbon tax. She muffed it up completely by agreeing to calling it a carbon tax later. Either way, it does not matter. How about you defend this nonsense of Direct Action where we bribe polluters to not pollute - a waste of billions and you are mute on that little doozy.

GerryH:

22 Apr 2014 10:25:00am

Mr. Berg anytime your ready to raise capital via crowd funding to launch a class action lawsuit against Mr. Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party of Australia for verbal breach of contract then please let me know.Unfortunately the last line of your article just seems to condone it.

a:

whogoesthere:

22 Apr 2014 10:26:22am

Gillard, in the most basic sense, did lie. She said there would be no carbon tax under a Government I lead, and there was. Personally I didn't mind, she couldn't have known there'd be a minority Govt, she did say there would be a price on carbon, and, I broadly believe in the principle 'when circumstances change I'll change with them'.

But, as Berg points out Abbott and his supports were not so forgiving, and we had years of the JuLiar jibes. Now Abbott has said 'no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no changes to the pension, no changes to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS'.

If he does break his promises he will be a hypocrite of the highest order. Given my stance on Gillard I could forgive him, but I have no doubt all those who could never 'forgive' Gillard will hold him to the same standard. How could they not ?. Well they'll find ways of course.

Unsuprisingly Bolt has already found a tiny 'out' for Abbott, just as those who supported Gillard tried. I wish people applied the same standard to those they support as they did to those they oppose. Maybe we'd get better politicians then.

Brett:

Nedkel:

22 Apr 2014 10:28:03am

"promises are signals designed to express a deeper character of the political party"

And this PM has clearly expressed the deeper character of himself as Abbott being a conman, a user, an abuser of the English language, a liar and God's gift to all mankind as God on earth and in heaven.

YeahRight:

22 Apr 2014 10:31:08am

Chris, what a bloody cop out.

You suggest that Abbott wasn't on a mission to cut ABC and SBS prior to the election; yet your favored IPA has had it on it's infamous list for some time. Abbott has been slowly ticking items off that list so to suggest that it wasn't on the cards prior and he made a blatant lie is complex bollocks.

You and I both know very well that the ABC competes with Uncle Ruperts financial interests in the media and that Abbott was put in power by the media who so favored him.

This piece is nothing more than trying to let Abbott off from breaking election promises because of course we should be used to politicians doing it; "Labor did it, don't you remember!?".

Anyone would think that you were once the editor for the IPA review and had deep seated conservative views that might sway you to write an article that essentially seeks to soften voters for broken election promises? hmmmmmmmm.

And for those that scream left wing bias in the ABC media; remember there is always the likes of Chris Berg out there to pat Abbott and his ilk on the back.

Gryffon:

22 Apr 2014 10:34:36am

That might be what parties do, Chris, but when, for year after year, this current mob were on the rampage about 'Gillard's lies' and 'Juliar' ad nauseam (given that they based that central meme on a deliberate incomplete quote), then there is NO weasel word excuse to not hold them MORE rigorously to the standard they DEMANDED of the now Opposition.

Remember the constant refrain; "Election Now!" based on this very fact of supposed lies and broken promises? Well, I'm afraid your explanation and analysis does NOT get them off the hook.

We were invited (by the bloke who says not to trust what he says in 'the heat of the moment', only what he has 'written down'!!) to vote for his mob because they were, unlike the other mob, trustworthy and would deliver a Government of transparency and no surprises, because 'the adults' were now in charge. HA!

hph:

22 Apr 2014 2:59:27pm

This is IPA. In their effort to control the political damage caused by Liberal party lies (mind you, Tony Abbott was well and truly lying to the public before the election) they now substitute 'truth' with a ridicules excuse such as this one: "election promises are there for breaking".

And then Chris Berg ends his article with this gem: "But let's not pretend to be surprised. Australia is one of the world's oldest democracies. We've been voting for broken promises for a very long time."

Truth is, we have been voting for *lying politicians* for a very long time and in the last federal election those who voted for Tony Abbott voted for a lying politician.

D-N-H-F:

22 Apr 2014 11:05:39pm

I knew Abbott would be a liar which is why I promised to flee Oz the second he was elected. And I did. But I also stayed here. I am in Australia and I am not in Australia. We are Australians and I am not Australian. I never lie but I might be lying when I say that.

Kangaroo Edward:

22 Apr 2014 10:41:05am

Tony Abbott in no way walked into a trap, what he did was overstate his commitments for personal political gain.He set the benchmark for his promises and undertakings and should he renege on anyone of them then he alone has created the rod for his own back.

lynne:

22 Apr 2014 3:35:43pm

Yes, I have always thought to myself everytime these so-called christians come out with outlandish and cruel comments, that the absolute hypocrisy of the religious is once again displaying its ugly head. This government has the cruelest policies as far as the asylum seekers go too, and how they can go to church and think they are doing their christian duties as they go through life is just beyond me.

bizzybags:

If you are a liberal voter then you should accept that the carbon price was always a standing commitment and that the confusion was always on its technical form.

Likewise labor voters should accept that this government always committed to austerity and that specific commitments would be revised when the books became clear.

Alternatively, both can come together, accept their sides are a bunch of liers and vote for alternative parties. Say what you want on the Greens and Palmer, at least they say what they mean and are open on their intentions. Perhaps it is time for a paradigm shift.

Stuffed Olive:

22 Apr 2014 1:07:47pm

The books were open and complete immediately prior to the election. There are no surprises there. Just surprises at how this bunch of incompetent ex accountants and lawyers can twist and lie and turn and propose cutting expenditure in all the wrong areas.

A Freeman:

22 Apr 2014 10:45:52am

It should be interesting for all to note that the Institute of Public Affairs is officially changing the meaning of the word promise from English to Legalese. Q) When is a promise not a promise? A) When a promise is made by ALPLNPGr Industry Politicians.

It is outrageous for the people to expect a politician keep there promises i.e Verbal Contracts. Perhaps this is the reason only about 12% of the population trusts politicians and dodgy US think tanks masquerading as representing Australia's Interests.

Take a look at the snap shot of Australia's Budget spending: Interest repayments to Zion Banksters and the Roman Empire - Always going up. Buying a new fleet of Japanese Attack submarines - up, buying US war birds -up, buying french attack ships - up.

Pensions for people who have paid tax all there lives - down. Cutting Health Care Cards for activists - growing. Money for renewable energy - down, money for independent media - down, Public Assets - selling to foreign interests. Money for US search and rescue cover-ups in the southern Indian ocean - $100+ million and growing. Use of Australian radar and navy radar to justify the wild goose chase - non existent.

It doesn't matter what gang is in charge of the cheque books and military, whether it be the LNP crooks, ALP crooks or Greens/CIA crooks, it all spells the same. Same balls different dog. Australia is run by foreign corporations for the benefit of foreign corporations. Our version of democracy is just a choice between one foreign run gang or another. Thats all we have been granted under parliamentary mafia style gang warfare takeover.

LeftRightOut:

a:

22 Apr 2014 2:48:39pm

What do you call Gillard and Rudds government? The greens had the power to do lots of things and what did they do? They gave us a new tax, instead they could of regulated approvals of new power stations away from CO2. A tax is far better for the powers that be. Palmer was right, the greens work for the CIA and care little about anything else than tasmania, whales and refugees.

The greens could of pulled funding for the 2 US led invasion forces...what did they do? Approved invasion budgets.

LeftRightOut:

22 Apr 2014 7:12:14pm

Controlling the balance of power is not the same as having power. They could impact on policy and did in some circumstances.

Your disapproval of protecting the rights of other people or the environment does not negate the fact that the Greens did utilise their influence (not power) to negotiate some changes, however they have never controlled the budget nor the military. To affect the military support provided to the US they would have had to override both Labor & Liberal - not likely.

Algernon:

22 Apr 2014 10:46:04am

This bloke was promising the world before the last election, whether they were deliverable or not. his only interest was power and he didn't care what he said or what he promised to get to power. Pity the the last Labor Government was so poor at communicating. Had they been able to to they would have shown him up for the empty vessel that he is.

So what do we end up with a Billy McMahon type leading a Billy McMahon style government.

Algernon:

tsj:

22 Apr 2014 10:46:21am

Mr. Abbott and the coalition were very clever in not saying that they would 'never' break such promises, thereby leaving the door open to future breaches of these. It is likely that any breaches of trust will be designed to be announced soon, but only initiated after a certain period of time - no doubt one which correlates with political opportunism and not actually anything to do with budgetary concerns!

aargh:

22 Apr 2014 2:17:10pm

Nothing clever about Tony. He said that his would be a government of no surprises and he would not do anything that he didn't tell us about beforehand. This was an outright lie as the bringing back of knighthoods proves. It just the first of many from Tony who has been a liar all his life.

JohnM:

22 Apr 2014 10:46:47am

Election promises often get made on the assumption that the country's or state's finances have been correctly reported. When that is subsequently found to not be the case then surely those promises should be discarded and blame assigned to the party that gave false information.

I have no problem at all with Abbott breaking election promises. Perhaps he shouldn't have made them in the first place but he showed an element of trust in the Labor party that with hindsight wasn't justified.

LeftRightOut:

22 Apr 2014 1:08:58pm

JohnM

They spent years saying how poorly Labor was running the country. They had access to the same budget information.

This rot about getting handed a dud budget and therefore not being able to keep the promises is getting tiresome. They new they could not afford many promises even if the forecasts were accurate, yet they made the promises in a hope the masses would accept it. Guess what, the mugs did accept the promises and where did it get them?

You have no problem with Abbott breaking promises but have been vocal about the broken no carbion tax promise for years. Double standards maybe?

Stuffed Olive:

Andrew Thomas:

"Tony Abbott walked into a trap during the 2013 campaign when he excluded a bunch of policy areas from budget reductions"

Trap? Are you sure, or perhaps just simple machiavellian tactics.

Look, I think we all need to just face up to the fact that our political parties have learnt that you don't win elections by appealing to peoples intelligence. Politicians "lie" because if they didn't, we would not vote for them. That is the unfortunate truth they face. Nobody will vote for someone who tells us what we need to know, just what we want to hear. And we are a short sighted, selfish, none-too-bright mob (generally speaking)

Fool me once, shame on the politician, but fool me twice and shame on us.

Ted:

22 Apr 2014 10:50:38am

What sort of an excuse is it to say that politicians don't see the word promises in the same plain English meaning of the word that we the voters do. It's just not good enough.

I have been contemplating this Government of no surprises for some months and sadly it has come to this. I have concluded there is a need for a charter of election honesty which would require a government to implement its promises and be barred from doing anything it had not promised.

Given that this will never happen, I will stick with my once every three year sanction and just hope that not too many irrevocable decisions have been taken in the meantime (like closing the motor vehicle industry).

Bill Bored:

22 Apr 2014 10:52:52am

So Chris, basically you are saying Abbott is a liar. Now I knew that before the election so why don't you start telling us something that we don't know.Now, a budget surplus is where we should aim we don't necessarily have to get there as a surplus means we have been over taxed. If Abbott wants to be seen to be genuine about funding cuts why doesn't he start with politicians and go from there.

Kagey One:

22 Apr 2014 10:54:10am

It may well be that political parties competing for election are prepared to make promises that they have no intention of keeping. But this does not mean that we voters should accept this particularly nasty form of dishonesty.If the TV we bought turned out to show everything in black and white rather than colour, how many buyers would just say... "Oh well, salespeople always lie to make sales... there's nothing we can do and at least that sales guy was more convincing than the other one".No, Chris Berg, I don't accept such deceptions philosophically and neither should any other voter.I accepted Gillard's back down on the carbon "tax", because she had made it clear that an emissions trading scheme was the plan and then, in reality, the only way to form government was to give ground to the Greens. That was an understandable and, in my opinion, acceptable reason for reneging on an election promise. Without the Murdoch press, it might have gone largely unnoticed.Abbot has no such excuse for reversing multiple, clearly stated intentions. He has a clear majority in the Reps and could sensibly negotiate with the Senate (except that his negotiating skills appear to be at pre-kindergarten level).These reversals of intention have nothing to do with struggling to form government, although we did see the most hilarious pantomime of attempting to organise their intentions shortly after the election, which illustrated beautifully just how unprepared they were.No, this is just plain dishonesty - disguised as concern for the economy - to implement Abbott's absurd gift to rich mothers, while cutting funds to the nation's only two impartial news outlets, because they have the nerve to publish facts that reveal the coalition's ineptitude and destructive intentions for Australia's future.That the population were gullible enough to buy the soft-soap that the government tried to sell at the last election is deeply disappointing. Let's hope they see through all this baloney before the next election. there is a very appropriate quote from an old ABC show: "Australia, your standing in it". Does our "lucky country" have the brains to step out of the coalition's muck?

Mr Zeitgeist:

22 Apr 2014 10:54:53am

So what exactly are you saying Chris?

We should excuse lying? A bunch of church-going catholics believe it is ok to lie, and continue to lie?Or maybe,as part of the Coalition's ideological priesthood, you secretly support attacks on Health, Education, Pensions and the ABC?

Of course, the IPA would prefer nothing better than the demise of democracy and the rise of a plutocratic state run by the Business Council of Australia.

BTW, Late Breaking News:Under the carbon tax, mining expanded and GHG emissions decreased.Sorry trolls, but that's from the government's own figures, Department of Environment.

a:

22 Apr 2014 2:53:21pm

yep the carbon tax was just another tax, the most salable. The government is giving away all our money to the zionist banksters, US weaponry and invading innocent countries. The government could of regulating the building of new power plants and mines, but no...they want more tax. Typical.

As for church going catholics lying, maybe we need an Australian wide inquiry into that. Then another inquiry into Zionists banksters in cahoots with our roman government and putting us in perpetual debt and indebtedness.

Kocsonya:

> Under the carbon tax, mining expanded and GHG emissions decreased.> Sorry trolls, but that's from the government's own figures, Department > of Environment.

The authors of the report will be summarily executed Sunday 4am behind Parliament House for treason, as they were disclosing sensitive information involving Operational Matters.

The Department will will be dissolved and its duties will be taken up by the Department of Official Untruths.

Current members of the Department will not be eligible for unemployment benefits but will be offered manual labor positions in the mines of Hancock Prospecting, at an average $2 a day. Their ideological re-education contracted out to Menothink Pty Ltd, a fully owned subsidiary of Fox News, Inc.

BloodyL:

22 Apr 2014 10:55:53am

I don't agree with the sentiment that voters are rational.I, along with the MSM believe there are enough fools out there who can be manipulated to believe anything they are told.Plenty of the rest are cynical enough to expect politicians will lie through their teeth to get elected.Unfortunately it's the fools who swing elections - witness our last Fed election, where Tone managed to convince enough nitwits he would be trustworthy.So now we have the Murdoch Govt breaking promise after promise. Hardly a surprise to those capable of rational thought.In the words of Thomas Jefferson, peopel get the Government they deserve.

a:

22 Apr 2014 2:57:42pm

It is not the fools who swing elections, it is the 2 party system that distort elections. If there was only meant to be a choice between dumb and dumber, we should just have 2 seats, one in the house of reps and the other in the senate and save a lot of money in the process. The easiest way to own a country is install a 2 party system.

Look at Japan at the last elections they had a choice between the bastards that built fuckashima or the bastards who lied to them about how bad the mess is. If your suffering from radiation or your family is dying in front of you, who are you going to vote for?

Its the revolving door system. Both sides are actually working for the same group and only providing an illusion of difference in there marketing, at the end of the day they are all the same.

Chris L:

nyknyk:

22 Apr 2014 10:58:51am

I don't know about you, but as I do not lie much I expect the same in return.

When I vote, I trust what the politician has been saying to me is there honest word.

It is certainly true that the real world can impinge on a political ideal, such as what happened with Julie Gillard's "No carbon tax" debacle. This was not a lie, it was a promise that came up against a minority government and the Greens. Gillard could not have formed government without making this agreement (the same agreement the Abbott was willing to make, the only difference being the independents and the Greens did not trust Abbott to keep his word.)

Then there is the lie to gain a vote. Saying something the politician is in full knowledge that will not or cannot be kept. These lies are designed to steal votes from the trusting, the stupid and the mean.

These kinds of lies cannot be brushed off, they damage democracy and the role of the politician.

Howard and now his student Abbott are masters of these vote winning lies, and Australia now suffers because of them.

Abbott should be held accountable, if not on the bench than at the booth.

atkinson:

22 Apr 2014 10:59:20am

Is a promise actually a promise if everybody knows at the time that it is unlikely to be kept. If you have attacked a policy initiative like Gonski for months (Conski) and then claim to be on a unity ticket, does anybody belive you? Is a promsie actually a promise if it is utterly preposterous (a people's assembly to achieve concensus on climate change) and you later renege on them? Is a promise to be a "friend of medicare" actually translatable into any kind of policy position whatsoever?

graazt:

brad:

22 Apr 2014 11:04:35am

"cutting ABC and SBS"

Abbott made this promise before the ABC declared war on the Liberal party. You made the choice to abandon your stance as an independent and trustworthy broadcaster, so whatever pain you are about to endure was entirely brought upon by yourselves.

Gary:

22 Apr 2014 1:51:57pm

Brad, really? The reason I go to the ABC is to find out the facts that is related to the truth, perhaps that concept escape's you.The ABC is almost continually under scrutiny by the Senate to ensure that it is unbiased, indeed the past reviews have determined that the ABC is slightly biased to the conservative view, no doubt due to the constant attacks from the right who find that factual reporting is contrary to their view of the world if you want bias then this is not the forum for you go to the Murdock press that owns the LNP.

hom:

22 Apr 2014 11:04:57am

Chris Berg are you serious? 'Here's one answer. Parties don't see election promises as promises in the plain English meaning of the word.' Since when is it acceptable to allow politicians to create their own meaning and application to words? A promise is a promise, full stop. Otherwise use an appropriate term that more accurately describes intent. We as voters should be able to make our own considered choices based on truths and facts rather than being asked to guess which truth is real and which is more of a grey flexible ideal or a downright misrepresentation.

Lady Lardbottom:

22 Apr 2014 11:06:40am

This is a government that seems to have already accepted it won't get re-elected based on what it does, rather only on if it maintains the ability to make the opposition look worse. As such, dismantling all of the previous government's programs (since they are "flawed" and "toxic"), getting the budget "back in order" (because Labor made "such a mess" of it) and "reining in the left" (who don't represent the "average Australian") will all be the order of the day in a war of ideology that will continue until the next election. This government will make unpopular decisions popular in the sense that they're only making them because the "other guy" forced them to, and happy days lie ahead so long as the Australian public keep the "other guy" away from government.

But if we promise anything remember that if we "discover" something the "other guy" did that might make our ability to keep our word the slightest bit difficult, all bets are off. Sorry, blame Labor.

Andrew McLennan:

22 Apr 2014 11:06:49am

When a politician wants to break a promise, it's a case of 'Oh well, everyone knew we were telling porkies so it doesn't count'. But when they want to keep one, their opponents had better meekly acquiesce because by Jove they have a Mandate.

For some reason they never tell us which promises are which before we get to vote.

fcg:

22 Apr 2014 11:08:02am

I'm sorry, but if someone gives an undertaking I expect him to stand by it. If he - or she - does the opposite then it is a broken promise and therefore a lie. When we vote for a party at a general election we can only determine who to vote for by listening to what they say are their intentions - their word or promise. If they retract once in power does that mean I can have my vote back? If, according to the tenor of this article, we can't believe what politicians say why should we be forced by law to vote for them? Furthermore I find it offensive that, if my chosen candidate fails to win, my vote goes to someone else - such as the Groans or the Party for Pretty Fairies. I will pass judgement after the Budget but if any promise is broken then expect huge scribbles suggesting what they can do to themselves the next time I have to vote.

DCO:

22 Apr 2014 11:08:03am

Something has to change. No amount of semantic hair-splitting by Berg et al can disguise the fact that we were lied to by this government. We have not got the government we voted for - who, for instance, voted for Abbott in the hope that he would further weaken the ABC?

Of course, it was obvious that he would cut funding to the ABC, regardless of what he promised, because he is an inveterate opportunistic liar, but also because the ABC is less easily controlled than his mate Murdoch's outlets, and sometimes the ABC broadcasts unflattering truths about the Abbott fiasco.

Finally, and most significantly, Abbott did make serious promises prior to the election. He made promises to the mining lobby, to corporations keen to reduce labour costs, and to Murdoch. These are the promises he will keep.

If Abbott is prepared to saddle Australia with a dud network infrastructure as a favour to his mate Murdoch, any promises he makes to people who don't matter (in his world) are worthless.

PW:

An interesting piece, which amounts to the mouthpiece of a conservative think tank advocating the Government break all its promises and attack pensions, Medicare, the ABC and SBS, and the GST.

The trouble is, the ground rules for election promises were forcibly altered by Abbott himself during the last term of Government. All he really do is take this stuff to the next election. Anything else will see the Government completely on the nose, even more than it is already.

graazt:

Hudson Godfrey:

22 Apr 2014 11:17:37am

Voters are indeed rational and know certain things typify politicians. However among those things that procure our vote lying has never been high on the list.

If you want to break this down rationally then what we know is that new governments often cut spending early in their first term this being just about the politically safest time to do so. They usually claim some hitherto unknown budget black hole in order to justify these cuts by blaming them on their predecessor. Few surprises there! And when they do so we know they're lying because basically they could have known were told before during and after the election, and made promises they're now breaking regardless of how they later try to spin out of them.

In this specific case the real deficit in credibility lies with cutting a whole range of established programs and tinkering around the edges of needed services while at the same time struggling officiously to shoehorn a couple of loose billion into the budget to pay for a profligate PPL scheme.

If Abbott wants to lie about election promises defer that one until were back in surplus, if surplus be the key justification to cuts. I don't happen to agree that surplus is at all a big deal, but voters take a very long time to forget not only the breaking of promises, but how badly inconsistency undermines a politician's spin when the promises that were core and non-core are so very divisive of our community. Middle class welfare put ahead of giving the least of our brethren a hand up is not likely to decrease out cynicism!

Comrade:

22 Apr 2014 11:21:48am

Nothing as severe as bonds on houses is needed. In the Profumo Case an MP who deliberately mislead the House was found to be in contempt and forced to resign his seat. Given that Parliament's authority derives from the people, it seems reasonable that a similar law be created applying to deliberately misleading the electorate.

In terms of the member being a representative who exercise judgement, this should apply only to the unforseen.

The Fiberals, however, repeatedly bleated about the budget position - it was their main point. To then use that budget position to justify their lies is unacceptable, but completely expected.

David Lee:

22 Apr 2014 11:24:14am

When Julia Gillard broke her promise about the carbon tax, the IPA was all over her. Lo and behold, they rationalise Tony Abbott's path towards broken promises. The IPA shouldn't be seen advancing the public debate but rather pandering to it's political masters.

Koel:

22 Apr 2014 11:24:29am

Getting that Leech Feeling? with the impending budget and broken election promisesLeeches have been historically used in medicine to remove blood from patients To feed on their hosts, leeches use their anterior suckers to connect to hosts for feeding, and also release an anaesthetic to prevent the hosts from feeling them.The anaesthetic has well and truly worn off the minimalistic slogans of the Abbott election.It is a matter of how soon these leeches can be removed.

Bfc:

22 Apr 2014 11:24:57am

It is no wonder the electorate has become so disillusioned with politics and politicians of any persuasion. There are a few exceptions, but we have way too many "career politicians"...the political elite is too privileged, and has no grasp of the reality confronting the average citizen.Too many former lawyers...?Palmer is correct, the pension should not be cut....the plans to change the pension entitlement rules is breathtakingly cynical and arrogant when one considers that politicians have the most generous pension scheme in Australia, and they need to do little to qualify (8 years? Everyone else has to work for over 40years...). There are several politicians have never had a job before getting elected, yet qualify for the obscenely generous pension after a very short period...indexed against inflation, thanks very much!

kenj:

22 Apr 2014 11:30:38am

"Instead, promises are signals designed to express a deeper character of the political party, writes Chris Berg."

....and the 'deeper character' of the Liberal Party is to come to office by any means possible, including telling lies. Or would that be to pay off their backers and benefactors with the spoils of office?

When challenged on their dishonesty they can always repackage it as a sincerely held position of aspirational intent, a 'motherhood statement' never intended as a firm commitment.

"When I told you the car worked I meant that I hoped it would. You can't blame me for your buying decisions."

Oaktree:

22 Apr 2014 11:32:20am

I remember a long time ago (black and white tv), one of the State Premiers elect awkwardly pointing at a pie chart which showed where the budget was to be allocated, while he promised spending here and there like rabbits out of a hat. At the time I was a bit bemused as I had just begun to take an interest as a young teenager.

Now, I think there is some merit in having a budget intention. It certainly beats the "promises" handed out like lollies before the election, by a politician that many of us knew was desperate to get in by any means.

Rocket Surgeon:

22 Apr 2014 11:33:15am

Chris, if you cannot rely on a politician to make good on what he or she says, then why listen to them, and why vote for anyone ever, at all.The purpose of the lie, is to get sections of the electorate that rely on the statement in their decision to vote.Most voters are "rusted on" voters. They have bought into the "party Values". But some people are prepared to listen and base their vote accordingly. They are the ones that get shafted. The rusted on voted gets whatever he or she gets.But a growing number of people are sick of the charade, and have started looking at other parties. I voted for the PUP last election, because neither major had anything that I wanted and had no credibility. And every time I hear a "Murdoch paid media personality" bag Clive Palmer, I know I have made the right decision.If politicians and Governments have no accountability on the means they use to gain office, then the electoral system needs to change in my view.

Diana:

22 Apr 2014 11:33:58am

Tony Abbott did not walk into a trap, he chose deception. Strangely enough those whom he targeted on pensions were the group most vulnerable to deception - the elderly. Most Australians know that Abbott makes things up on the spot, whether it is about visiting Archbishop Pell or the integrity of the Medicare umbrella. They would not have been deceived, so Abbott can easily break his promises because not many people believed him in the first place.

Abbott is beyond lying. Henry Kissinger said that "[President] Nixon doesn't lie, he invents his own truths." Tony is a bit like Nixon. We should get over it.

Oaktree:

22 Apr 2014 2:13:11pm

.. or maybe we should do something about it by holding our politicians to account, and not just at the ballot box. Write to your MPs, make your views known. If they are genuinely there to represent their electorates, they are duty bound to take our feelings on board.

firthy:

22 Apr 2014 11:35:45am

I'll wear the breaking of a promise if the grounds for doing so are reasonable - after all circumstances change and I would rather government adapt to such changes rather than sticking to agendas that are written in stone. Indeed I could have worn the carbon tax change if it had been implemented better - after all some form of price on carbon was part of the agenda of the previous government. But a price which was the largest in the world with a significant percentage of the revenue generated from it being used for redistributive purposes was not. And the latter is what irked me. I guess we wait and see what the current government does...

AgentSmith:

22 Apr 2014 11:41:35am

Q: When is a promise not a promise?A: When it is made by a politician.

But don't they call them pledges these days? I presume they use that term because they have devalued the word 'promise' so much that it has become meaningless when spoken by a politician, and pledge is supposed to sound so much more believable. As if! Its just another word for them to devalue.

Alison Cann:

22 Apr 2014 11:41:55am

Chris,Promises are made to get elected.And when people get elected the promises they gave before the election are no longer valid according to the politician. He or she after election now holds a stronger position than when they made the promise.In the stronger position the politician can explain way the promise made with hand on heart as rhetoric said in the heat of the moment.

Dove:

22 Apr 2014 11:57:20am

At any given time, when a politician opens their mouth there's a 50% chance that they're lying. During election campaigns this goes up to 100%. How is that people are still surprised, outraged or disappointed? How is that anyone can pretend to find excuses for it?

David:

22 Apr 2014 11:59:21am

A Abbott ' despiser' I am, but this guy suffers badly from a huge ' foot in the mouth ' problem and his get into power, say anything , promise everything to get into power, and following his mentor Howard, with his core and non core promises just might bite him on his royal loving posterior.

Peteroc:

22 Apr 2014 12:00:15pm

No matter how many words are spoken by PM Abbott, his colleagues and apologists, Australians know what he said and meant.

The man whose whole Dr No approach to Opposition and subsequent ascension to power was centred on the broken promise by former PM Gillard cannot now redefine and adjust the promises and commitments made during that ruthless drive for power at any cost.

Peteroc:

22 Apr 2014 12:00:27pm

No matter how many words are spoken by PM Abbott, his colleagues and apologists, Australians know what he said and meant.

The man whose whole Dr No approach to Opposition and subsequent ascension to power was centred on the broken promise by former PM Gillard cannot now redefine and adjust the promises and commitments made during that ruthless drive for power at any cost.

Fortunatus:

22 Apr 2014 12:02:26pm

A friend of mine once told me that you should always vote for the party least likely to keep its promises. That way you would know you have a much better chance of getting responsible and competent government.

What I think he was getting at was that sane politicians know that much political promising is childish but is required like children's Christmas lists for Santa. Neither the politician nor the voter expects everything on the list to be honoured, but its part of the ritualistic electoral game, as parents and children play the Santa Claus game every year. The sensible parent doesn't give the child everything he asks for, and the politician, once in government, has to observe principles of prudence and sound financial management which more often than not mitigate against largesse. The child and the voter don't expect to get everything either.

Perhaps, too, political promising is tied essentially to the human impulse for hope. We often hope in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. We buy Tatts tickets knowing our chances of winning the big one are almost zilch, yet the sentiment of 'you never know' keeps our hopes alive, and harmless enough if our stake is low.

Perhaps an even better analogy is with marriage. People marry for a second or third time in a spirit less of reality then of hope over experience. Most second marriages fail, and third ones 'succeed' because of exhaustion more than bliss. Yet people remain ever hopeful.

The same applies to politics: people continue to hope, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary: politicians know this only too well and continue to feed our delusions with the fantasy of promises, most of which will be broken sooner or later.

The current government seems set on a path of breaking most of its promises. You can tell this because it keeps adamantly telling us it will keep them. As it is a collection of utter liars, then the opposite of whatever it says must be true. We'll see many promises broken over the next year or so.

Whether my friend is right and this public mendacity leads to responsible and competent government remains to be seen.

SoSirius:

22 Apr 2014 12:02:55pm

Oh they're not really promises are they Chris - nobody really expects 'them' to do what they said in the lead up to the election. What they really meant was that they would listen to you and your mates at the euphemistically titled think tank called the Institute of Public Affairs. A group which intends to have all government holdings handed over to private enterprise regardless of who has to suffer in the process. You want to get your hands on government fire sale items to enhance your own personal wealth. Don't worry about the pensioners, or Medicare or the National Broadcaster... after all, people forget and a liar is better than an incompetent any day. What a choice set of 'ethics' you espouse. Its not about building a society or the good of its members, its about greed pure and simple at the expense of the many.

The nose:

22 Apr 2014 12:03:49pm

Political promises are there persuade the gullible. I tend to look at the history and the overall ideology of the party when casting my vote.Tony Abbott has been characteristed, by critics on both sides of the political spectrum as willing to promises the earth to become PM, except sell his "arse".

Peter:

22 Apr 2014 12:04:08pm

It is interesting how many people still keep rabbiting on supporting the line that debt was only built up to "escape" the GFC and that anyhow it is low compared to many other countries. Actually the rate of debt build up continued long after any threat existed and in fact the rate of debt increase escalated. In fact by far the reason AUS escaped the ravages of the GFC was China, not Rudd's school hall and pink bat schemes. Terms of trade increased in favour of AUS dramatically after 2007. Iron ore prices went from $Us40 to $Us 180 and the $AUS declined from 95C to 65C Coal exports were similar but not anywhere to the same extent.

Fortunately economists are now focusing on the projected rate of build up debt if policies in place at the time of the election in September 2013 were continued. There were dramatic increases in spending with no planned increases in revenue.

The Government needs to do what is required to fix this problem, irrespective of what was said before the election now and over 2 years sell sell sell the message. Graphs can be produced showing the with or without versions and the contrast will be so stark that even a moron could understand. However to sell the message sucessfully a large knife will need to be taken to middle class welfare

Gary:

22 Apr 2014 2:02:24pm

I wonder then why Swan was recognised as "The worlds best Treasurer" after the dust settled from the GFC (which by the way was caused by the Conservatives in the USA) After the event is where the experts would have had the time to analyse the outcomes, perhaps then Labor did the right thing but you and the shock Jocks know better I suppose.

LeeW:

22 Apr 2014 4:41:38pm

Peter : typically LNP apologist propaganda in rewriting of history to justify Abbott and Hockey's LIES. The Charter of Budget Honesty as prepared by the Treasury and legislated by the Howard government puts paid to any of your feeble attempts to excuse these LIES.

YE:

22 Apr 2014 12:08:00pm

One should measure whether a politician meet the commitment by seeing if he or she tried every effort to do so instead of the result. The political structure of a democratic country is so complex that is made up by many different branches and parties. Nothing could be passed just because one leader of one branch or one party want to do so. So there are obstcales for leaders to meet their commitment and citizens should understand that. But it is a totally different thing if the leader did not even try to meet his commitement. In that case, that guy would certainly lose the trust from the people which is the most essential part of being a politician in a democratic country.

Jay Somasundaram:

22 Apr 2014 12:10:37pm

Nope, election promises are not signals of party intentions either. Election promises are simply the bribes the party believes it needs to promise to get the vote of a particular bloc. Once they get elected, then whether they keep the promise depends on the cost of keeping it versus the possibility of losing that bloc at the next election.

How do we tell the true intentions of a party? Look at who holds power, knows how to use it and how different decisions will affect them. Add in a bit of luck and just plain confusion.

Chrysostom:

22 Apr 2014 12:11:34pm

So by your standard, then, the electorate should have kept Julia? Who your conservative compadres called a liar over and over again. On the strength of one broken promise on the so called carbon tax. A position forced on them by minority government. If thats what you are getting at then we must have "the incompetent" in power. A party whose "true policy position" was obscured and obfuscated by themselves and the main stream media prior to the election. A policy position dictated by the dangerous and un-Australian think tank you are a part of. It's nice to see the ABC giving you breath though. The wider electorate needs to know what drives the LNP and who sets their "policy"

harvey:

22 Apr 2014 12:14:07pm

People are not rational at all, they are irrational and politicians count on it. They count on the average person being so distracted by work and family that they forget what was promised by the next election, and can be conned again. They are right usually.

Pollies also say different things to different audiences. Abbott was a master of this at the last election.

To the meeting of seniors, the aged pension was sacred and not to be touched. To a meeting of businessmen, he would say that there needs to be massive cuts in welfare spending. Hockey was banging on overseas about the end of entitlement in 2012 and 2013, but not a word here until after the election.

Jangle:

22 Apr 2014 12:19:56pm

Sadly, it may be true that we all now expect politicians to not hold to their promises. This however is a very poor excuse for the current prime minister to break his. After Tony Abbot spent 3 years calling Julia Gillard a 'liar' about carbon tax (when what she actually said was - 'We will not have a carbon tax - but we WILL have a price on carbon' and that's what we got) he should realise that the breaking of REAL promises could be incredibly detrimental to his standing in the eyes of the public. If you're going to talk the talk Tony, be man enough to walk the walk.

foolking:

22 Apr 2014 12:20:45pm

Be Brave It's not so much the broken promise, it's about explaining why and what changed with logic and fairness. The Gillard govt was probably the worst at this in recent times,[Tone and the impolite knights has only threatened so far]Julia had to say[nicely] Kev was acting like a nutter and no one could work with him, no sleep etc, as an example.

The nonstop negative bucketing that so captured the media's imagination didn't help.[ a bully fetish?]

A politician has the right to change her mind, there not superheroes, just explain the mistake or change in circumstances believably... and then find out if the public agree with you...

Monty B:

22 Apr 2014 12:21:13pm

This description of Abbott walking into a trap is very generous.

Politicians are the kinds of people that frequently paint themselves into a corner then walk across the paint. They make cynical calculations about how much duplicity the electorate will tolerate and conduct themselves accordingly.

For example Abbott floated the possibility of reneging on Gonski, and closely monitored the level of public reaction. Having judged the backlash as too severe he re-committed to his unity ticket.

This budget will be a similar process of cutting services to those in most need while cutting taxes -for example for the mining interests who fund the IPA, while judging how much of this ideologically driving class warfare he can get away with under the guise of addressing some budgetary emergency.

Gr8Ape:

MWD:

22 Apr 2014 12:27:51pm

There is a difference, surely, between a politician who promises something and then finds out that he/she can't deliver it because of relatively unforeseen circumstances, and a politician who promises something knowing full well at the time of the promise that they won't deliver, or most likely won't deliver.

I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool Labor/Gillard person, but she just had to adjust her (unwise) stance on a carbon tax after the numbers were counted at the 2010 election and she needed Greens support. There are other issues to more legitimately criticise Labor/Gillard/Rudd on than that one.

I suspect we're going to see a raft of broken promises with the budget which are more of the "nudge nudge wink wink" type. Abbott and Co knew they'd get to use the "big black budget hole" excuse to shake off quite a few promises. That's the more cynical and less honorable path of promise-breaking.

Jerry:

22 Apr 2014 12:28:21pm

Abbott was elected on the basis of deception. Another election is needed.Australia is one of the oldest hypocrisies. The people vote and the politicians then dance to the tune of those who supply the capital investment to the country.

Gordon:

22 Apr 2014 2:47:35pm

I do like "hypocrisies" although it would be better spelled hypocracies perhaps?

You are quite right too about the influence of capital, but we are our own worst enemies in this regard. Australians have collectively earned (and spent) enough money since Federation to buy back and own "the farm" 10 times over. But what have we to show for it? Overpriced homes and a vast gaming industry. While we continue to treat business as form of unreported crime, and investment as something other people do, we will be forever in need of those other people's money; and he that pays the piper picks the tune.

keith:

22 Apr 2014 12:36:04pm

Abbot is going to stuff this wonderful country...he tried to talk it down for years now he can come on like a wrecking ball as long as he keeps the B.S up his followers will keep there brain in there boots and vote for the B.S artist

Moi:

22 Apr 2014 12:37:10pm

It is against consumer law to engage in deceptive practices so it's about time people were allowed to sue political parties (not/not governments) for material losses due to broken promises. For example, if the Libs promised not to change pensions but actually did so then pensioners should be able to launch a class action against the party to recover any losses.

Gary:

22 Apr 2014 2:08:15pm

I note that you mention only Labor polies that could be trusted that is interesting.But given History I have to accept that premise because I cannot think of a LNP Polly that satisfies the criterion.Can anyone here indicate otherwise Honestly?

georgefripley:

22 Apr 2014 12:40:16pm

Yeah right Chris - it's all about 'the vibe' not the actual promises. Call me cynical but I didn't hear you saying the same thing about Labour party promises. A bit one-eyed are we? It's all politicians - so don't make excuses for them. They all read from the same book

Extract from the politician's handbook section about elections(honest it is!)

Non-core PromisesAs the campaign gathers momentum and moves into its final weeks your party will start prostituting itself to all and sundry, making promises of funding to everybody if only they will find it in their heart to vote the right way. These are called non-core promises as they do not form part of the official policy platform and are sure to get forgotten very soon after the party is elected. The usual excuse is that the budget isn?t as strong as expected because of the mismanagement of the previous government.

Clarke:

22 Apr 2014 12:41:57pm

It is instructive to read the IPA 75 point plan that is being adopted by the COALition. It appears that Mr Berg is arguing for politicians to promise nothing. Then they can get on with the plan drawn up for them by the elites - Mencken's supermen, Rand's industrialists and other haters of democratic government for the common person so admired by the IPA apparatchiks - unimpeded by pesky promises, commitments, responsibilities, oversight or accountability.

graazt:

Miss Information:

22 Apr 2014 12:43:45pm

yawn.......bring on double dissolution, the sooner we vote this joker out the better, hopefully clive can bring about enough discord there, then we boot his insidious butt out of the senate....then there's the problem of getting some competent people in politics.....nothing to see here.

Gordon:

22 Apr 2014 4:39:28pm

You will get your wish.

Clive Palmer & the Greens will make the current parliament unworkable in the expectation that a DD will suit them better. We will end with either an even bigger lib majority (if the punters see through that ploy & punish ?m) OR more likely a even more unworkable situation of bigger chunks of greens and palmerians fighting for advantage in yet another hung parliament.

Clive is on a mission and biting the hand that feeds him is one of his prime tactics. Several chaotic parliaments in a row would suit him down to the ground.

AJ:

22 Apr 2014 12:43:47pm

If parties don't see election promises as promises in the plain English meaning of the word, then they have disconnect with the Australian public. If any political party makes election promises, voters are entitled to take them at their word. If they don't follow through, they have a credibility problem.

It this kind of disingenuous behaviour (from both sides) that is doing damage to the profession of politicians as a whole. I think a lot of voters are just looking for parties to clearly articulate their vision and policies before an election, and if installed as government, to follow through with them. Instead we get broken promises from both sides.

No wonder politicians have less credibility than everyone except used car salesmen and journalists.

LeftRightOut:

22 Apr 2014 12:44:57pm

The promises are almost always the same: Fix education, fix hospitals yadda yadda yadda. Yet we see many governments re-elected before an eventual kicking from office - Howard, Hawke/Keating etc at the federal level and long stints at the state level such as Bjelke-Petersen and the more than a decade of NSW Labor. Maybe it's not the promises of a potential incoming government as the actions of the current government. Therefore the promises have little meaning and maybe the pollies know it.

One campaign from a few decades ago focused on a slogan - Time for Change. This might be the reality of voting habit. It seems we seek change when the current government either gets on the nose (NSW Labor) or does something to upset the electorate (Howards Work Choices). Keating was booted in part for talking about the recession we had to have.

RobP:

22 Apr 2014 12:48:10pm

"So the mystery isn't why promises are broken, but why they are kept at all."

There's no real mystery. The promise/enactment landscape can be quartered into:

1. Promises that are easy to keep that are kept.2. Promises that are difficult to keep that are kept.3. Ideas not promised that are easy to do and that are done.4. Ideas not promised that are difficult to do and that are done.

Not surprisingly, 1 and 3 win hands down. It all boils down to whatever's easiest.It sums up modern society to a tee.

Esteban:

22 Apr 2014 4:29:49pm

The easiest thing for Abbott and Hockey would be to keep their promises and keep recording budget deficits to pay for them. They would probably get reelected and don't have to give us any bad news. (Other than further delay getting the budget somewhere close to surplus).

Remember for the last six years the ALP have argues that as long as our debt is small in comparison to other countries we don't have a problem. Have you seen the size of some countries debt? Abbott could keep all promises, introduce a gold plated NDIS, NBN, Gonski and our debt would still be small compared to other countries. That is your easy path.

The hard path is being responsible for the repair of the budget which will require disappointing a lot of people.

I suspect that Hockey will emulate Swann and we will find that the actual budget is much softer than his pre budget talk.

The correct way to introduce significant reform to tax/welfare/superannuation is to prepare the ground and take it to an election. The ground takes a couple of years to prepare so I can't envisage significant broken promises this term but I can envisage that the 2016 election will be very important for our future.

Harquebus:

MJLC:

22 Apr 2014 12:59:29pm

Fascinating.

A 920-word article entitled "Election promises are there for the breaking", and the words "lie" and "lying" don't appear even ONCE in the text (check it out yourself), and "truth" gets merely a single showing as part of the ridiculous word "untruth".

I commend Mr Berg for the advanced level of slimy wordsmithery he displays by taking a subject about dishonesty and setting about successfully weaving dishonesty into it - presumably as part of an in-house bet to see if he could get away with it.

Your subject matter would, no doubt, be very impressed with your efforts sir. That's a promise.

C:

Skylab:

22 Apr 2014 12:59:31pm

Politicians' salaries should be indexed to their election promises. Commit to work objectives like anyone would have to in a major organisation, and then pay reviews/bonuses reflect how well those objectives are achieved. It's simple. If they won't keep promises for ethical reason, maybe money will talk.

bbss:

gp:

22 Apr 2014 1:03:59pm

And what about Abbots promise in blood. And the promises which were not written , those are not contracts, I presume. Surprisingly there is one promise he will not give up . PPL.

Of all politicians Abbott was the worst of them. Most people realise that some promises are broken when circumstances change , but Abbott would not countenance even that when labor was in power . he pursued the govt. of the day relentlessly about broken promises supported by radio shock jocks and news ltd. Its time the very same people pursued Abbott for his broken promises and weasly words will not cut it. Alan Jones i presume, would lead the march on Canberra.

Geronimo:

Ummm:

22 Apr 2014 1:12:27pm

Chris Berg is simply going soft on the Liberals. It is his brief to defend the Liberals - it is his 'raison d'etre'. When Gillard allegedly broke her promise, all Hell broke loose and she was demonised. Now, Chris Berg is trying to soften everyone up to accept Abbott's broken promises - it's just life, he would have us believe.

Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, Chris Berg. You can spout the same Liberal pandering articles week after week, but you won't be convincing me! : (

Observer:

22 Apr 2014 1:17:41pm

A promise should be kept if possible, I clearly remember people like Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott saying that the Rudd government's Budget numbers were all they had to rely on despite them doubting the accuracy, including of course the now proven false claim to have produced a surplus. They also said that until they were in government and had access to Finance and Treasury officials and records they could not guarantee anything.

Note the Swan creative accounting: to produce a surplus on paper for financial year 2012/13 he pre-paid expenses for that year in the 2011/12 financial year increasing that year deficit. He deferred expenses for 2012/13 into 2013/14 financial year and left many budget commitments unfunded, the Coalition inherited the budget in crisis. He also increased gross borrowing to $670 Billion and accumulated $128 Billion of budget deficits despite the mining boom and record terms of trade, revenue at an all time high before the boom ceased. Our borrowed monies were squandered for many stupid and self-serving reasons the least being: $100 Million grant to the University of Adelaide following which former PM Gillard was appointed a visiting honorary professor and $300 Million, more than three times what the UK and USA gave to the UN IMF Education Fund which Gillard now chairs. Many Billions of Dollars wasted.

Commitments are almost impossible to sustain when the budget is in such a mess and the nation owes so much money and interest on that money.

Finally regarding ABC and SBS, there can be no justification for empire building using taxpayer funding for public broadcasting, example sending more than one outside broadcasting unit to events that commercial channels send one each. Expanding the scope of operations beyond what the Charter envisaged and in the IT Age when taxpayers have many options to obtain information and entertainment. Lastly, for taxpayers to fund a generous maternity leave scheme for public servants when they who pay their wages have none.

DWM:

22 Apr 2014 2:06:15pm

Utter rubbish. the budget was never in crisis. that was just another slogan used by the liberals to scare the voters and was parroted by the Murdoch media. Any problem with the budget can be attributed to the Howard government who unwisely gave away billions by way of tax cuts and middle class welfare. these giveaways came at a time of record revenue collections which unfortunately are not guaranteed unlike tax cuts/middle class welfare that becomes part of the budget until it is repealed.so now we have a structural deficit and the mistakes of the Howard era need to be reversed.Howard also wasted billions by the early payment of debt."The buy-back of government debt before maturity has meant that a premium of up to 25 per cent above the face value of the debt has been paid. A 1999 Auditor-General's report showed that in two years these losses amounted to $935 million, but they may not be reported as a loss in the budget for up to 10 years. All we know is what is provided in the forward estimates, which show that even though debt will be non-existent in 2006-07, we will still be paying $3.5 billion in interest expenses."

Wave2me:

The budget didn't qualify as a crisis, after all, it was actually a fantasy.

The number of under the table accounting tricks, and one off changes that Swan did in order to achieve a surplus was criminal.

Simple examples of moving expediences into the current 2011-2012 year, where the actual result was going to be so far from the budgeted result, it didn't matter.Pushing costs out to 2013-2014 estimates, so as to fall outside the budgeted period.

Reducing the time money can be lost so they would get a one off windfall from lost accounts.

Taking extra dividend over an above what is prudent.

The problem for me isn't just that we were going to run a deficit, but that Labour simply lied about it.

As to saying our current problems are down to Howard, he was out of office for six years.

As the economy changes, its up to governments to change the mix of tax.

Company Tax was up, the money wasn't needed, so personal tax was reduced, and this was also Labour policy a the time. Part of many of the Keating reforms purpose was so that Personal Tax could be reduced.

You will recall that Rudd promised tax cuts prior to the 2007 election.

When the GFC hit, he should not have gone ahead with further tax cuts.

Its a classic case of continuing to honour a promise made when circumstances were very different.

I wrote another post below on how no party should be honour bound to continue with a promise when times have changed.

They should give us a vision and tell us what the outcomes are they want to achieve.

We then need to allow them to alter the HOW (Such as tax rates) when circumstances, or a particular method fails to achieve results, in order to move towards that vision.

We should no hold any government to a tax cut, if the circumstances change, and it was a big mistake to continue with them.

robert:

22 Apr 2014 1:19:15pm

No,you are wrong, Labor doesn't see election promises as "promises" in the plain English meaning of the word. You are all confused Tony Abbott is NOT Julia Gillard or Kevin Rudd. You've even got the party wrong,now try again!

Citizenjane:

Gillard paid dearly for the error of the 'great carbon tax lie'. Only one, but very big issue in people's minds.

I never really understood as at the time I distinctly recall having a discussion with my husband, both concluding that it would be ok because at least she followed it up by saying there would be a price on carbon of some kind. I'm not sure how but several million people seemed to miss that and remained intent on nailing her on the semantics of wording.

As history will tell, self interested parties won the battle of the day as they managed to tap into the concerns of mainstream Australia. Less migrants, discomfort around female leaders, scare campaigns around fiscal spending. There was clear evidence of the nation's weak spots.

In comparison, we now have Abbott bulldozing through election pledges like there's no tomorrow and yet we barely hear a murmur in the tabloid press.

Talks of changes to our industrial relations that threaten to weaken the very foundation of our lifestyle has barely raised the shackles on our average worker, and yet it was those same average workers who showed how enraged they were were over the 'carbon tax'.

I have no other conclusion. The nation is apparently seduced by this necromancer. I despair.

Brian Francis:

22 Apr 2014 1:22:29pm

Chris,You are devilish and this being just a sniff away from the Budget. You must have known that the Labor faithfull would come out swinging on broken promises from the now Government. You may be playing into the Government hands on this one, they may want this fight now rather than later.

Judy Bee:

22 Apr 2014 4:17:08pm

Hello Brian Francis

A little bit of 'swinging' from the Labor faithful? I would have thought a lot of folks would take issue with the premise that the electorate will accept deception because 'we are used to it'. Is that arrogance or amorality?

Election promises appeal to the emotions of voters. Emotions drive politics. Emotions drive the political commenters here on the Drum. Very little of it is rational. And that is why we have an Abbott government.

Brian Francis:

22 Apr 2014 5:51:46pm

JudyIt would be beyond my scope to respond given that Ms.Gillard was brilliant at playing the 'emotions'. To her credit she did garner a deal of following in the election that saw herself become a minority government. The 'emotions she stirred with the 'no carbon tax' statement , saw her through there and she went on to utilize emotional response thereafter- that's politics I guess.

bigj:

22 Apr 2014 1:22:31pm

The Carbon Tax Lie was a central plank of Abbott's 3 years of campaigning. When an opposition leader makes honesty a key part of their platform and then does the opposite when in power, that in itself is a lie. Well may we be used to lying politicians, but Tony Abbot has taken political hypocrisy to heights not seen by Sir Edmund Hillary.

Liberal Party supporters are now lining up to excuse Abbott and this type of article will be one of many more to come. Was there any chance you would have written an article like this 18 months ago Chris?

Patrick53:

Gordon:

22 Apr 2014 4:25:29pm

Let me get this right...There is ICAC nicely lining up ALP stooges for the gallows one by one, making sure the whole Obeid ALP empire is never out of public view, but then, in order to advance someone's career Tony Abbot cleverly engineers a catastrophic own-goal in the heartland of the libs, (did he go back in time with a bottle of Grange under his arm?) thus making the advancement of the so-called mate into a hospital handpass anyway.

I think you need to reconnect with that old saying about conspiracies and stuffups mate.

Patrick53:

22 Apr 2014 6:13:01pm

O'Farrell was the main roadblock to Abbott and the Liberals introducing a higher GST rate nation-wide and now he's gone what is the first thing Baird addressed ?. The GST rate...mate. Just watch the GST Liberal sideshow gather speed in the near future and you may learn something.

Alice:

22 Apr 2014 1:46:03pm

It was a common phenomenon not only in Australia but also existed in many other countries that when the parties haven't come into power, in order to have more votes, they always give much promise make citizens believe they are beneficial , once they achieve the propose, they just leaving the promise behind or do not make good job of it. Interests are everything, isn't it?

OzAz:

22 Apr 2014 1:48:09pm

What annoys me almost more than Abbott's promises he's likely to break, is that he's always going on about his 'mandate' to cut the carbon and mining tax. On his own logic, if he got voted in to cut those taxes he also got voted in not to cut budgets as he promised during the election campaign.If he can "change his mind" about budget cuts then he can change his mind about cutting the carbon tax, and his 'mandate' is inconsequential.

Liza:

22 Apr 2014 1:50:57pm

The hypocrisy that now Tony Abbott is in power his advisors (the IPA) would like to change the narrative that a promise broken is just the reality of politics. I don't ever recall that opinion coming out when the Carbon Tax lie was all we had to hear about! There is nothing more arrogant than a double standard.

The question I would put to you Chris, is would Tony Abbott have won the Sep 2013 election if he had told the truth. That he would cut education, health, ABC, SBS, that the rich would get richer and the poor would have to have lower wages, and work until they're 70 and slog it out until the debt was paid off. I'm thinking that conversation with the Australian people, no matter how ferocious the Murdoch press was would not have gone down well. That is the standard by which he will and should be measured.

It's important to remember that the LNP weren't voted in the ALP were voted out. And Tony Abbott knows that, hence the lies and broken promises - the unity ticket to get the undecided voters who didn't want cuts to those things to make their final decision, believing that those basic rights would be looked after by the LNP. They are the ones who are now hurting. I think this betrayal is not (and should not be) an expected outcome - I think that the LNP will have to face the music. And your suggestion that election promises are there for the breaking is insulting to every Australian voter that is looking for integrity and honesty in our politicians.

ScottBE:

22 Apr 2014 1:59:36pm

I have often been dubious as to the value of "promises". Commitments to do or not do something may be made with the best of intentions. Yet, later when circumstances change, promises are empty, insubstantial and generally aimed at gaining some degree of confidence the promiser wants.

In politics promises have always been kept as a list for political watchers to tick off or complain about if not adhered to. You may remember that Bob Hawke did this as did Paul Keating. But Mr Howard eventually explained about "core promises" and argued that "non-core" promises could be broken.

One might fairly say that Julia Gillard broke her promise on the Carbon Price, yet this was a promise made to demolish Mr Abbott's belligerent claim that Ms Gillard would impose a Carbon Price. I believe that Ms Gillard's intention was genuine, but when it came to managing a hung parliament, she had little choice. As it was, it was a sensible decision whereas her "promise" was not.

Mr Abbott has taken this argument to the extreme. He has made as few promises as possible, but including that he will keep all promises. This has become a visible example of the confidence trickster. To lie and dupe his audience into believing in him and then to do a complete reversal of everything he has said with his three word mantras being the only exception.

Chris I don't accept that promises are made to be broken. Nor are our fellow voters sufficiently savvy to discern lying from truth unless they maintain what might be called a "healthy scepticism". Most believe what they are told. Therefore, it is incumbent upon politicians to tell the truth rather than to make false promises and lies!

Anastasios Manolakis:

An election promise is a lie, so on what basis are you electing a party to govern the country? Two politician parties (Liberal & Labor) whom both make promises which are lies.

Is it not time people voted for a representative at a local (seat) level rather than the lies spun by two political parties.

You can hold an individual accountable but not a party of individuals, it is time people asked the candidates in their seat what you will do and forget voting for parties that just lie to you. If your elected candidate will only follow the party line they are not representing you, the voter.

Skeptic:

22 Apr 2014 2:21:30pm

Politicians break electoral promises? Exactly so. Which is why I have never, ever blindly voted for any of the major parties on the basis of their promises. Since I realize that my vote really only counts at a local level, I usually base my 'how to vote' decision on what my local MP has done for his/her electorate since the last election, regardless of their party affiliation. If they have done an OK job, they get another go at it.

Wave2me:

I want to hear a vision of what the party wants Australia to look like.

Tell me the outcome you are trying to get.

Then tell me how you intend to try and get that outcome if elected.

I will then hold you to continuing to achieve your vision, but not the How.

And the reason is simple.

We all know that sometimes when we try to achieve an outcome, the way we go about it doesn't work, so we then have to try something else.

We should be first concerned with WHAT we are attempting to achieve, then worry about the HOW.

A government should not be considered to be lying if the result fell short, and they try a different method to get the outcome, the should actually be

We should not hold a party to a promise, if the circumstance has changed.

If a party had promised to cut military spending, and our country was attacked after the election, would we expect them to cut military spending. No, we should be big enough to admit that times have changed.

A big example of this is when the GFC hit just after Rudd won government. He should never have reduced PAYG tax, because the circumstance under which he made that promise changed.

So I want to first and foremost and overall vision of what they want the country to look like.

And no party go close to that, no big picture at all.

Just a whole heap of individual, often conflicting policies that say nothing at all about priorities, or the big picture they are trying to achieve.

Monty B:

22 Apr 2014 2:40:23pm

Abbott really really wanted to be elected PM. So much so that he was prepared to talk down Australia?s economic standing and AAA credit rating while in opposition, and commit himself to things like his ridiculous PPL scheme.

He also degraded the office of PM by encouraging words like liar to be directed to the office. Gillard critics will say she had herself to blame for this but Abbott`s relentless pursuit of the liar angle will very deservedly come back to bite.

The list keeps growing. I see today`s broken promise is Medicare Locals.

Col:

22 Apr 2014 2:42:38pm

Promises are not promises in the eyes of the party may I also include this rider to those party apparatchiks who think they are above mere mortals. Mandates are not Mandates unless they are bound by a referendum . therefore by Abbott's own party rules on promises he has no platform to govern except those of a charlatan or megalomaniac .

Tom1:

22 Apr 2014 2:45:23pm

One of the few times I can agree with any one from the IPA.Abbott took the opposite stance to every Labor policy around, and made many of his own, simply to convince the gullible public to vote for him. "The best opposition leader ever"

If he had half a brain he would adopt the quote "When circumstances change, I change. What to you do"?. That would be far better than his current almost hysterical mantra of sticking to his pre election promises, no matter how stupid.

In effect the nation( If it is stupid enough to reelect him) has to wait three years before anything substantial can be done.

In the mean time he has to defend a do nothing (But talk) Government because he has cemented himself into a corner.

Added to his dilemmas' will be the fact that he will have to find excuses for all of his stupid promises he cannot get through because of a Senate not as compliant as he had the arrogance to assume.

But that of course will give him time to convince doubters in his own constituency that the FTD is the ants pants.

I will have to admit it is far easier to criticise a Coalition government as bad as this one than I thought it would be. Even Chris Berg is doing it. Just waiting until Michael Kroger makes a slip on the Paul Murray show, and tells the truth.

Gordon:

22 Apr 2014 2:54:25pm

I'd prefer a pollie that promised nothing but best endeavours and the absence of actual thieving. Why we need to be promised the "ruling in" and the ruling out of specific baubles that we all (ought to) know simply restrict options later on is a great mystery.

Chamberlain promised "peace in our time" and tried to keep it. That worked out well didn't it?

Observer:

22 Apr 2014 3:18:57pm

The many times repeated there will never be a carbon tax ........... and after the back flip renaming it a price on carbon is a pathetic attempt at political spin. Tax, price, whatever it is effectively a tax. Had it been attached to the failing EU ETS consumers and businesses in Australia would still be penalised, cost of operating businesses and the cost of living, even the cost of government services. With ten per cent of revenue pledged to the UN. How to undermine national prosperity in one hard to take lesson.

NJW:

22 Apr 2014 3:19:27pm

The paper you refer to suggesting that voters "infer the true policy position of candidates for office despite the thicket of untruths" seems a very weak support upon which to base the notion that voters are rational.

The paper simply builds several game theoretic models in which this result occurs, but it relies upon an extremely stringent set of assumptions, since it relies upon sequential equilibrium as its preferred solution concept.

It makes no attempt to test these models whatsoever.

In general, you may be right that voters don't believe the promises that politicians make. But it would be nice to have some actual evidence for this, rather than some fancy modelling which seems divorced from reality.

It's not as if research on voter beliefs and behaviour is thin on the ground.

davidhh40:

22 Apr 2014 3:22:50pm

The main aim of any political party is to get into power so they can try out their particular brand of "social engineering". The standard reply to a broken promise is regardless of the truth " the position is much worse than we thouight and these measures must be taken to protect the budget " for example, together with "The previous Government brought us to this situation and these are the steps to remedy the problem"Sometimes it is possibly true but even if it is not the excuses are very similar. These reasons are often used when they want to go in a different direction to what they inferred before getting into power where there is possible public angst about the action being taken. The three year election is the time when politicians are desperate to remain in/gain power for a chance to feed from the public trough and try out their "social engineering" so anything goes.

lilly:

22 Apr 2014 3:30:33pm

The solution is simple. Promises made by politicians should be subject to the same laws as claims made by companies about products that they sell. Those who don't live up to their promises should be prosecuted and lose their seat in parliament.

blax5:

22 Apr 2014 3:34:21pm

The many comments regarding the ABC, cuts or sale, need to look at it in a more hardnosed way. Every time I watch the ABC (or SBS) I am not watching Foxtel. I haven't even subscribed to Foxtel, sent their never ending offers back. "Return to sender - no interest". The strategy would be that if you can delete/weaken the ABC and SBS, more people would subscribe to Foxtel. That's business.

I certainly would not subscribe. I'd sell my 3 day old white HD LED TV. By and large, the ABC is not biased, although Emma Alberici was close enough last night in her Kasparov interview, speaking of the "Putin-Regime" - a loaded phrase.

When do we speak of a 'regime'? Answer: When we do not like what they do. In this case Kasparov mentioned that 80 % of the population was behind Putin & Co. Should I now put in a complaint about bias?

Doctor Nik:

Legislate that all election promises must go onto a KPI registry for the governing party.

Thus, should members of the governing party fail to meet these performance indicators, their pay, entitlements and even seat will be forfeited.

Legally enforcing by-elections due to broken promises will go some significant way in reminding politicians that character and integrity are preferred commodities to the electorate, irrespective of whether you agree with any particular policy or not.

Breach of peace:

The public is not surprised by the insincerity of the politicians and for those that are on 'public record' making promises but not fulfilling them and making promises and doing exactly the opposite!

"I weep for the liberty of my country when I see at this early day of its successful experiment that corruption has been imputed to many members of the House of Representatives, and the rights of the people have been bartered for promises of office." Andrew Jackson

"Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it cost nothing." Edmund Burke

anote:

22 Apr 2014 4:19:37pm

"Tony Abbott walked into a trap during the 2013 campaign when he excluded a bunch of policy areas from budget reductions." Abbott did not such thing. He went in with his eyes wide open and he intended that what he said would be believed.

"One objection might be that in a representative democracy we do not vote for representatives as agents to do specific enumerated tasks, but instead install independent delegates who we trust to follow their own conscience." It is likely that Abbott does see it something like that but that is paternalism not democracy. Besides their trust is undeserved and it does not follow that conscientious people would lie just to trust.

Changes in policy can be justified, such as by change in circumstances. The electorate can them judge the acceptability. However, false promises are lies and unacceptable. Thinking that the electorate believes politicians to lie is not an acceptable excuse for them to lie.

Abbott's and the Coalition's pre-elections have proved to be blatant lies. Abbott is still insisting that he and the government are keeping their promises. It is telling that even the IPA plainly thinks he has/is lying. So why is Berg writing this drivel of an excuse? Maybe they just prefer this lying government because they will get more of what they want from it an alternative. Are we now supposed to forgive the lies?

GrumpiSkeptic:

Every now and then, I come across some gem of an old movie. These were originally in black and white, and people were still wearing penguin suits and ties, plus very tall top hats to boot!

The central characters are, yes, politicians. They were vying for the enthusiastic crowd's votes. There was a train, a steam train, of course. The politician stood on the platform at the end of the train. There he weaved his magic and spread his charms.

"If you vote for me, there will be XXXX, and YYYY, and XX+YY". The crowd cheered and clapped. At the end of the sermon, sorry, speech, babies were raised to be kissed, hands were fiercely pumped, and the train moved off, carried the politician off to lie, sorry, charm, to another lot of enthusiastic crowd.

That is all part and parcel of being in politics. If anyone think otherwise ought to get their heads checked!

Yes, to believe promises by politicians is as good as handing over a signed blank check. We have done it time and time again. We know fully well that once that black check is in their hands, they can do whatever they please as they have a full three years to fill in the dollar amount and spend it.

Why not toss the lying, cheating, heartless mob out? Well, the alternative is not going to be any different.

Out of the despairs, cynicism, skepticism, there is one bright spot...We got to vote for a new government every three years!

John51:

22 Apr 2014 4:28:39pm

"So the mystery isn't why promises are broken, but why they are kept at all".

Maybe the reasons political parties should live up to their promises is out of respect for the democracy that allows them to stand for government. That is the first reason with the second being about treating the voting public with some respect rather than the contempt that we too often get from them.

It all depends on how much you value the society that we live in. That is the question that should be really asked of our politicians and the governments they form. Do they believe they should treat us, who they are supposed to represent, with respect, or with contempt. Do they treat the democracy they are supposed to represent, with respect, or with contempt.

I would suggest if you lie simply to get into government than they are treating us all with contempt and not with respect. If they really believe in something than they should have the honesty and guts to stand up and argue for that before they get into government. Simply disregarding what you promised to get into government is to treat us all with contempt.

So I am trying to work our what you are arguing here Chris. Are you really saying it is alright to treat the voter with contempt by lying just to get into government. I hope not because that would be a very dangerous thing, very dangerous for the health of this democracy.

Chris you say we are one of the oldest democracies. But I would argue in the form of government democracy is a mere babe in the woods. All you have to do is look around the world to see how vulnerable democracy, as a form of government, still is. And for that reason it needs to treated with proper respect and care and value it for what it has given us.

Mark:

22 Apr 2014 4:37:02pm

Of course the author is right to say that nobody expects politicians to be keep their promises, whether by choice or circumstances beyond their control, but that doesn't excuse them from the blatant dishonesty or hypocrisy that has marred every recent election.

I think I could speak for most electors when I say that I should be able to reasonably expect the following behaviour from electoral candidates: - to differentiate between promises (in the usually understood sense), specific aspirations and general policy positions - to be honest about what unknowns may compromise their intentions - to not pretend they keep their promises better than their opponents (unless they actually do, which would require an astonishingly refreshing level of diligence and restraint)

It would also be nice if the media were a little more discriminating in reporting positive intentions during election campaigns. As the author acknowledges, a statement that "I will..." during an election campaign is rarely understood or intended to be understood as "You can take my firstborn if I don't...".

PS Pleeeeease stop talking about mandates. We can all see what and how big your "mandate" is by what you are actually able to achieve.

MulberryWriter:

22 Apr 2014 4:47:44pm

All these articles justifying Abbott's perpetual mendacity (lying in case you don't know). He is dishonest in the extreme. You cannot simply brush aside pre-election commitments as just promise that really don't matter. Abbott himself will think you are an idiot if you do - remember his harping on 'no carbon tax' with Julia Gillard. Yes, plans can change but lying...well, this Government takes the cake. I have never known it to be so bad, so blatant and so dangerous given what is happening and I am over 70 and have seen a lot of governments come and go.

Sir Peter Leeks:

22 Apr 2014 4:51:39pm

In his typical fashion, Abbott and the Coalition are trying to play it both ways. They contend when someone else makes a statement in the form of a promise, it is a hanging offence, and the person who made that statement should be lynched if it is not honoured in Abbott and co interpretation of the statement. But if Abbott and co make a statement in the form of a promise anyone who takes that statement at face value is to be taken out and hung by a lynch mob for daring to believe Abbott and co would ever say a true word.

Your problem Abbott is you are trying to change the ground rules you made and which you and your shock jocks inflicted on others.

Green Tea:

22 Apr 2014 5:05:59pm

Human's instict and reality--difference between before achieving and after accomplishing. Maybe those promises were meant to be completed in the first place, but I don't see that in other countries as well. For example, in South Korea, the Se-wal Ship has been draining into the sea, and there are still people in it and suffering from hunger, coldness, and water pressure. People in there cannot do anything but try to survive in a dark place where a lot of people have alreay passed away. The president of South Korea promised many things, and one of the major promises was "safety of citizens" and yet, there has not been a smart solution and citizens of South Korea have been struggling with government's acts. They do not even provide safe place for people who have been waiting for their children to be saved at the beach. Promises, should never be something that they want to convince citizens, it should always and forever be the real promises.

JMJ:

22 Apr 2014 5:14:42pm

Chris, finding savings so as to improve the budget bottom line is not only causing a lot of unnecessary pain for many living on the breadline but unconscionable. It would be more prudent & less painful if the Abbott government introduced a financial transaction tax to raise more revenue.

Mervo:

22 Apr 2014 5:15:09pm

The Coalition/Conservatives always have a problem with handing money. They are the tighteners and straighteners (Manning-Clark) of the political world and really could not care less about our services in health and education, child care and transport. Just create a playing field for big business and big polluters to wreak havoc. And the 'joke' is on us. We, as tax payers, pay them to do it. Witness the Direct Action stunt. We pay the big polluters to 'think' about reducing their waste and we pay for trees to be planted in non-arable areas. Billions spent of our hard earned dollars. Why can't we have a Government that has some balance and a bias towards us?

Joan:

22 Apr 2014 5:25:26pm

Australian`s really are dummies if they believe they can have it all and pay nothing for it. As for LNP they just played election game to rules set by Labor and now turf Labor unfundable game rules out to set own realistic rules. As for visions and big picture it comes to a nation prepared work hard , make sacrifice - does not come from a lay back mentality that someone else should pay while waiting for visions to appear on a mount. The Australia of the future is made up of our individual efforts today. and a queue standing waiting for hand outs is a sign of a nation going nowhere .

Artful Dodger:

'The Australia of the future is made of of our individual efforts today"Sounds very much like the American Dream Joan- except for most of them that dream has turned into a nightmare.

The Australia of the future is the Australian of the past -the one of a fair go-mateship, respect of and helping each other, integrity and honesty to a such a degree where you trusted your fellow man.In a world which we know is so inter connected how can the hell can one worship the cult of the 'individual"

Rob:

22 Apr 2014 5:34:16pm

Tony Abbott did not fall into any trap.He knew what he was doing from th day he became leader of the opposition. He sat out to destabilise the Government by pandering to the fringe and demonising asylum seekers, independents and a female Prime Minister. In that he was helped by a politically incompetent Labor Government which also surrendered the square to the fringe and tried to b/s its way through by promises of surpluses.

His "promises" were designed to win the election- no more no less. He knew that he would break every one of them in the first year of his term. He also knew he would cement policies beneficial to vested interests in his first year.

He would then have two years of damage control and sweeteners to convince the punters to give him another go.What could well bring up undone is the total failure of his ideology of free market economics.

seanone:

22 Apr 2014 5:37:28pm

Greg, I see you are with the IPA so that explains more than anything else why you have a problem with the simple truth "Abbott lied knowing he never had any intention of keeping his word". He as said so himself on Four Corners a number of years ago "you can't trust anything I say and only some of what I write". As for comparison with Gillards no carbon tax promise it is a non event because first it was not a tax, even though she was badgered by media into saying it was. It was a price on polluters for continuing to pollute easily avoided by reducing their pollution something you can't easily do with a tax.

Reinhard :

22 Apr 2014 5:59:42pm

Berg is just one of many Liberal apologists trying in vain to justify Abbott's lies and broken promises , so lets just revise them shall we?:"Should we win the election, an incoming Coalition government will do exactly what we've said we'll do. We will be a no surprises, no excuses government because you are sick of nasty surprises.""We will restore accountability and improve transparency measures to be more accountable to you.""We promise a government which is transparent and open, ''the last thing we want to do is to hide anything from the Australian people""Should we win the election, an incoming Coalition government will do exactly what we've said we'll do. We will be a no surprises, no excuses government because you are sick of nasty surprises.""You can vote Liberal or Labor and you'll get exactly the same amount of funding for your school''"Why shouldn't I, if you will permit me, spend my first week, as Prime Minister, should that happen, on your country"."We will get the Budget back under control, cut waste and start reducing debt." vs $16.5b worth of discretionary spending"Can I just scotch this idea that the Coalition's policy is or ever has been tow-backs." "No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS."

Libby Mithell:

22 Apr 2014 6:12:14pm

It is inconceivable that citizens must tolerate broken election promises, when they are told later by politicians that "We had no idea just how bad things were under that last government". The whole system is an absolute farce!We need new laws to ensure that all 'the books' are provided to the other parties, with proper opportunity for accurate scrutiny and analysis of a government's true financial position, with results to be made public well before elections. Such shoddy loopholes suit all parties at different times...a bit like the loopholes that allowed for elections that our voters had to vote in, without any ID and using lead pencils. Thus the rorting continues.

Joe Blow:

22 Apr 2014 6:17:53pm

It is so clear that the government will use Labor's own terminology - the 'efficiency dividend' to reduce waste - hopefully the ABC's ED will be backdated about 10 years. The rest of the changes will be out beyond the next election - perfectly consistent with Abbott's stated position that he won't make any changes without seeking a mandate from the voters. Now how do you reckon Gillard would have done on the Carbon Tax if she'd had that sort of integrity?

So next election let's watch Labor trying to argue that it will forego all the future budget savings identified by the government, will reduce the pension age back to 67, reintroduce the Carbon Tax and Mining Tax, and cut PPL (oh except for Public Servants and politicians who already have this privilege of course). And all this without the money of their ex-Union mates, many of whom will be in jail!

Zany:

22 Apr 2014 6:20:33pm

I think many who voted for abbot like me will not vote Liberal again next time. I think the lies , the disrespect shown to constituents in farming and manufacturing is just appalling not to speak of the manis island murders of asylum seekers. Every day there is a new crisis with this foolish government and I'm fed up with it already.

Zany:

22 Apr 2014 6:20:34pm

I think many who voted for abbot like me will not vote Liberal again next time. I think the lies , the disrespect shown to constituents in farming and manufacturing is just appalling not to speak of the manis island murders of asylum seekers. Every day there is a new crisis with this foolish government and I'm fed up with it already.

hph:

Zany:

22 Apr 2014 10:35:47pm

I voted Liberal because of Labor in fighting and going on like there's no reckoning and complete self interest. However I now find Liberal policies appalling and not in keeping with their core promises.

A country gal:

worried:

22 Apr 2014 6:29:28pm

We are looking into the abyss of a Murdoch dominated news service. They will mould public opinion to suit the abbot government. The ABC is the only quality impartial news service left in the country. It should not be dismantled for political reasons.

foolking:

foolking:

Someone tell the govt that a political explanation is ok, believe what you're saying and move on..we will get the jist, open govt. just say it, if it's fair and true to you just say it.

But more importantly if a polly is guilty of a balls up, historically we have to look at what the defendant has done for the country. How hard did they try to be honest and reasonable, that is a real part of our heritage. The Lionel Murphy clause

arf:

22 Apr 2014 8:01:16pm

Promises have always been political roadkill and I think it would be better if politicians refrained from making them.It is very cynical to say it's alright to break them if it's your side.I doubt this article would have been written when Gillard announced the carbon tax.

CalvinB:

22 Apr 2014 8:12:25pm

Tony Abbott has never done a normal hard days work in his life & just like most of politicians. they will never know what it is like to be stuffed, & hangin' for a schooner on a stinking hot summer arvo. They cannot get through the day without lying, & their lies are not "porkies", as they are playing with the lives of all Australians. That goes against all that my father taught me about being truthful.....If you fail to vote, you will be fined...........The shame of it all..............

fides:

HolyCow:

22 Apr 2014 8:28:59pm

If promises are as you say meant to signify the deeper character of a party, then the 'string of broken promises' sign from Abbott and Co. would be 'We are deeply dishonest and don't give a fig if people care'Doing Australia proud!

RLS:

22 Apr 2014 8:39:09pm

It seems to me there are a lot of people who have not heard of a programme called "Bolt". If ever there is a programme that is more biased I have yet to see it. Andrew is outspoken about being biased and appears to be proud of it. A shame he can't play straight down the line instead of presenting distorted or half truths. I would rather trust a report from the ABC.

ICanCU:

22 Apr 2014 10:50:17pm

The biggest difference between Ms Gillard's misleading the public about carbon pricing implementation and what is being "leaked" about forthcoming budget cuts is this.What she was doing was the right visionary big picture thing to do for the planet and it's inhabitants including Aussies.The current government "leaked" pre budget cuts are miserable small minded square ups or inhumane bashing of suffering citizens.Yes both lies to the public but at least one leader was going in the right direction.BTW was it the previous government saying under Mr Abbott we would see cuts cuts cuts before the last election. In this regard they certainly weren't lying and they could be well excused for now saying we told you so!

Treetop:

22 Apr 2014 11:02:46pm

Julia Gillard was given a hell of a time for breaking one of her election promises yet it appears Tony Abbott wants to break a string of election promises .You would think that Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey would have learnt a lesson from the Gillard government that you don't break election policies or a large percentage of the electors will call the politicians liars when election policies are broken . With the polls before the budget showing the government's support is going backwards very quickly , the government looks like it will be in even bigger problems with the polls once the budget is released .Pensioners took Mr Abbott's word that pensions will not be changed and most pensioners are very experienced voters and from what I am hearing from lots of pensioners is that they are very angry with Mr Abbott at the moment .If Mr Abbott thinks that he has the option of calling a successful double dissolution now , he will be making a huge error .It looks like Mr Abbott will have some very difficult times ahead as Mr Palmer senses the difficult times the current government is in and Mr Palmer will be putting a huge amount of pressure on the government to get as much as possible before he approves of his party passing any legislation in the senate .

observer:

22 Apr 2014 11:34:29pm

The current government is based on Fear Uncertainty and Doubt - their just a bunch of shonky salespeople who cannot be trusted - of course they are not going to keep their promises, and they are also a pretty mean bunch of people, they certainly don't seem to have the welfare of the whole of Australia at the forefront of their thinking.

Old Trombone:

23 Apr 2014 12:34:38am

The only people who think the ABC is biased are the same people who think Murdoch owned news isn't biased. That's it, there are absolutely no people who think both the ABC and Murdoch aren't biased, or that the ABC and Murdoch both are biased.

Also, the only reason Abbot wants knights is so he can give Murdoch the knighthood the Queen refuses to

GVM:

23 Apr 2014 8:20:07am

Why do you guys turn every thing into a one eyed football team like discussion? Democracy is about vote swinging not sticking blindly with one party. Politicians need to be held accountable for their promises. If they don't follow through without a very good reason then they should cop the wrath of the voters, even if you did vote for them at the last election.

Mobnoel:

23 Apr 2014 8:55:14am

Abbott should tread lightly when it comes to the ABC and SBS as a large number of his supporters would be regular viewers of both. I think he has underestimated the viewing habits of thinking Australians. Just because he likes Hadley, Jones, FoxNews text, he must learn that most of us don't and he will suffer at the polls.

RGG:

MD:

23 Apr 2014 10:59:26am

There's a deep irony to politicians legislating for commercial honesty, enforcing honesty in accounting and reporting practices, and in prospectuses for companies on public offerings, while absolving themselves of any real responsibility for "honesty" at all. The so-called "Minchin protocol" that requires them to pay back expenses claimed inappropriately, without further penalty gives them no incentive to even consider whether a claim is appropriate the next time. Meanwhile, they confect moral authority to assert that the abandonment of "non-core promises" is the "mandate" that they've been charged with. Invoking the wry old joke, nowadays their lips don't even have to move.

Littlehorse:

23 Apr 2014 11:42:01am

I am a senior citizen and live in a small regional rural country town in NSW. My husband recently took a redundancy from the public service. He is 64. He has a form of sever asthma as a result of a bout of pneumonia and has been on life support and nearly died twice in hospital since 2011. Each time he goes to hospital with an "exacerbation" there is a chance he will die.

My husband started working at age 18 and recently took his redundancy as he realised that he would probably not get a chance to retire before he dies unless he does. I asked him if he was worried about the stance the Abbot government is taking on retirement benefits and the aged pension and his reply was "WHAT HAVE I BEEN WORKING AND PAYING TAXES FOR THESE LAST 46 YEARS?!"

With the Abbot government also wanting to change Medicare I thought to myself "Nothing". :o( Only to line the pockets of the very wealthy.

People get old and with get the same maladies that come along with age (arthritis, dementia, cardiac disease, cancer, etc...) that they have gotten years ago. The only difference is that medical science can keep you alive on machines. You are alive but what is the quality of your life?

My husband says people are foolish to believe any politician because they all lie. In the Abbot governments case that is certainly true if he makes changes to the aged pension as he promised not to make any changes to it before the election.

Maybe he thinks that senior citizens have such poor memories that they will forget? I would like to remind Mr. Abbot that we will NOT FORGET and we VOTE.

Most of the seniors I know including myself depend on pensions as their sole support. If Mr. Abbot does away with pensions for seniors (and the disabled ) we will have nothing to live on. I don't think Mr. Abbot or Mr. Hockey care at all about us (senior citizens). They will never have to worry about putting food on their families tables.

Mr Abbot claims to be a Christian yet cutting benefits to the most vulnerable in society is not a very Christian thing to do. Only bullies and cowards pick on the weakest in society.

The American Social Security Act was enacted August 14, 1935. The Act was drafted during President Franklin D. Roosevelt's first term in office. The Act was an attempt to limit what were seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children. By signing this Act on August 14, 1935, President Roosevelt became the first president to advocate federal assistance for the elderly. These things are universal and not only problems in America.

I think Mr. Roosevelt would be rolling in his grave if he knew of the intentions of Mr. Abbot and his governments and I do not think he would approve.

Surprise:

23 Apr 2014 1:36:27pm

The age of the moron..Those who don't take an interest in policy or outcome. That only take an interest in the sound of someone's voice or the clothes worn. These are the people that stupidly believe the lies told and then vote accordingly.These are the morons that decide our futureAnyone with half a brain can analyse and see through the lies. Its the ones that only have enough grey matter for the Kardashians or Big Brother that give us Government.